This afternoon the Minister for Local Government criticised the Opposition because we were spending so much time discussing the Bill. One might have thought the Government would be glad we were being so vigilant and were scrutinising the Bill carefully. We scrutinised the Bill not for the sake of criticising it but to see if we could suggest any improvements.

In this case and in future legislation perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would consider the possibility of allowing the lower paid workers to forego their contributions to the fund. In his brief he referred to the lower paid workers and I would ask him to give sympathetic consideration to my suggestion.

When a Minister takes us to task for scrutinising a Bill too diligently he is suffering from a misapprehension about what we and the people think of the Government. Do the Government think their record is so good, that they have instilled such confidence in the Opposition that we would allow the Bill to pass through this House without studying it? That is too much to ask from any Opposition. It is our intention to examine the Bill in detail, in view of the fact that it was Fianna Fáil who introduced the original Bill. Today we were taunted by Deputies on the Government side who said that although Fianna Fáil introduced the legislation and put it through the Houses of the Oireachtas they did not implement it. I would point out that the Government were more than a year in office before they decided to implement it.

What does worry one is the fact that the demands made on the fund may become so great there would be a certain diminution of its powers to meet such demands. This evening we will have seen the Taoiseach's statement of foreboding and gloomy predictions. I mention that because we on this side of the House have been accused of glorying in the fact that things may get worse. We do not; we do hope the world economy will take an upturn because we have lost faith in the Government. Unless some outside sources bring about a revival of the world economy, we do not trust the Government to do anything effective to stimulate our economy.

Though we may deplore the conditions which make it necessary for the Government to extend the period of benefit, we accept this Bill. In respect of people who have lost their jobs the Opposition will insist that proper compensation—if that is the best word to use—will be forthcoming in order to tide workers and their families over this period hoping that, in the not too distant future, things will change, that we will have our men and women returning to gainful employment and be not merely dependent on social welfare payments. We have got to drive home to the Government that we do not accept that social welfare payments are an end in themselves. We must strive to create an economy here affording full employment to all our people. Until that day arrives we cannot afford to be complacent about the extent of our social welfare payments. We cannot forget our duty, which is to strive to build up the economy so that we will not have a 10 per cent rate of unemployment.

In his brief the Parliamentary Secretary mentioned people who said that the system was being abused. He went on to say there were politicians who were saying nasty things about some social welfare recipients. Every system is abused by somebody but that is no condemnation of the total system. Therefore, I do not place much importance on anything that is said in that line; it is too easy always to pick holes in any system. As the Parliamentary Secretary has said, if there are found to be abuses, he will endeavour to have them eradicated; if for example a deserving case was being denied full payment, then there should be a deep probe conducted into such case. But I am sure that in the various phases of life—in regard to the payment of income tax and so on—there are abuses to be found. However, I do not think we should waste too much time on that aspect. Rather we should investigate who are the people who most need this benefit. Having decided that, we should ask ourselves are we using the money from the fund in the best possible way? The vast majority of people unemployed would prefer to be engaged in their trade, profession, factory or shop, and we must strive to achieve that.

I would suggest also to the Parliamentary Secretary that he examine the possibility of extending the training facilities provided for some workers at present but not all. I am told the number involved is about 5,000 but, when one thinks of 103,000 unemployed people, 5,000 is a very small percentage. I put these two points to the Parliamentary Secretary: (1) that he should try to relieve the lower-paid worker of contributions—that is, while he is working—and (2) that we expand our training facilities.

I would hope the Government would not have to extend the period of benefit any further because we realise this is being implemented because unemployment is at a very abnormal rate. It would be very nice if we could look forward to the day, in the early future, when the unemployment figure would drop considerably, when our workers would be back in gainful employment, building houses, schools, the hospitals needed and so on. But until such time we cannot afford to be complacent.

At some future date I hope the Government will introduce a really comprehensive scheme of social welfare, when perhaps we might codify all our Social Welfare Acts. Until such time we must do the best we can with what the Government place before us. We reserve always the right to criticise and suggest improvements; that is the purpose of an Opposition. I hope the Government will accept this criticism in the spirit it is offered and that we will not have Front Bench petulance as was experienced this evening.

It is extremely difficult to know where to begin in replying to the Second Stage of this Bill. As the House is aware the Bill is a very short one and deals with one particular aspect of social welfare, pay-related benefit. We have been listening to what could best be described as an adjournment debate or a debate on the Estimates for the Department. It is very difficult to reconcile the welcome verbally expressed by the Opposition spokesman, Deputy Andrews, with some of the other contributions made on this Bill. Once again the Opposition finds themselves at variance with each other as to what is the best approach, politically speaking, to this measure. I have come to find that, as far as the Fianna Fáil Party are concerned, their approach to anything is determined solely by what political expediency recommends itself at that time, and we have been subjected to it again today. Deputy Andrews' welcome for the Bill, for example, conflicted greatly with the contribution of Deputy Meaney who could be described, quite objectively, as being hostile to any extension of the social welfare services, if one is to judge by his contribution.

However, in commencing to reply, I should like to repeat something I said in my opening statement, that is, that this proposal is not intended as an emergency measure. It is intended as a natural progression of the social welfare code in this country, as seen by the Government. I can understand, and possibly even more so than I did this morning, the inability of many of the Fianna Fáil spokesmen who spoke on this Bill today to comprehend what exactly we are talking about when we talk about social welfare and the fully comprehensive scheme towards which we are aiming. Do you know why I now have a little greater insight? Because Deputy Brennan today, the immediate predecessor of the present Minister for Social Welfare, described benefits paid under this scheme, and I quote, as "hand-outs". The Fianna Fáil approach to social welfare was and still is a matter of "hand-outs".

That, of course, is not true.

I am quoting verbatim from Deputy Brennan who was Minister for Social Welfare up to March of 1973.

The Parliamentary Secretary is quoting out of context.

It is a matter of record and it can be checked. When you have that approach by a former Minister the kind of contribution we had from some Fianna Fáil speakers today becomes quite understandable. As I said, it was more like an adjournment debate than the Second Stage of a limited Bill. One of the things running through every contribution by every Fianna Fáil speaker was the question of the number of unemployed. It was implied that what we were trying to do in extending pay-related benefits was to buy their silence. Indeed, that was openly stated on the benches opposite during the debate. We ought to explode this Fianna Fáil myth that everyone who is unemployed became unemployed only since March, 1973. Let us look a little closer at the record of unemployment since the foundation of the State and, more particularly, the record in the 'Forties, the 'Fifties and the 'Sixties and let us compare the figures.

Selecting the proper years of course—1948 to 1951 and 1954 to 1957.

The Deputy specialises in being selective. He is not alone in that. Unfortunately people outside this House in positions of responsibility are very selective when they are trying to distort the facts in relation to payments under this pay-related scheme. I shall come to that later. Let us talk now about the unemployment record. We have approximately 100,000 unemployed. To me, this is a very large figure. It is a figure that causes me great concern. It is a figure that every effort is being made to reduce. But that figure of 100,000 unemployed is in the context of a world economic crisis which has hit every economy in the free world. Some of the strongest economies are suffering massive unemployment. America is suffering massive unemployment. Japan is suffering massive unemployment. So are Western Germany, France, Britain, Belgium, Denmark and even the Scandinavian countries.

Let us look now at the traditionally acceptable record of unemployment under Fianna Fáil who ruled this country for over 30 years. When other economies from 1945 onwards, except for a short period in the middle of the 'Fifties, were enjoying full employment and getting almost hysterical if their unemployment rate went over 2 per cent a figure of 7 per cent unemployed was totally acceptable to the Fianna Fáil Government. That figure was acceptable under Fianna Fáil right through the 'Forties, the 'Fifties and part of the 'Sixties.

It is now 10 per cent under the Coalition.

I have not quite finished. Added to the 70,000 approximately 7 per cent unemployed, which was acceptable to Fianna Fáil and regarded as normal for most of that period, we had 30,000 emigrating every year. Add the two together and you come up with approximately 100,000 who could not find employment in this country. Fortunately emigration has now stopped.

Since when?

Since April, 1973. Give us the selection.

In the middle 'Sixties emigration fell. When all other western democracies had full employment, or damn near it, we had 60,000 and 70,000 people unemployed plus 30,000 emigrating every year right up to the middle of the 'Sixties. Cut out the nonsense now that all the 100,000 now unfortunately unemployed became unemployed only since this Government came into office. Wake up to the realities. Stop running up that cul-de-sac.

It is 10 per cent under the Coalition and the Parliamentary Secretary's argument is bogus.

The difference is that we are concerned not only about the 100,000 but equally concerned about the 70,000 that Fianna Fáil wrote off over all those years. If it is not possible because of the economic situation in the world, which this country could not escape, and because of the years and years and years of unconcern and mismanagement under Fianna Fáil, to provide employment in the immediate future, it is possible to ensure that the poor unfortunate people who cannot get employment are cushioned against the worse ravages of unemployment.

We will have no free beef.

And no free butter either.

Deputy Cluskey is in possession and Deputies should cease interrupting.

This nonsense about sudden concern on the part of Fianna Fáil for the great masses is simply not getting across. Fianna Fáil have been found out. Let them accept the facts now and try to be a little constructive. As well as helping the economy it might help the Fianna Fáil Party.

This is the responsible line, is it?

We heard all this before.

We were asked why extend it for three months? We had pay-related benefits for six months. Why extend them for another three months? To stop the people shouting and roaring about being unemployed, to stop the workers sitting on O'Connell Bridge because the workers were in revolt. These were the statements made by Fianna Fáil in the course of this debate. That was alleged to be the motive behind the extension of the scheme.

The Parliamentary Secretary is becoming hysterical. He should cool down.

It is very difficult to cool down after listening to the totally irresponsible statements from the other side of the House.

Let us have a lower key.

Please, Deputy, do not interrupt the Parliamentary Secretary.

The Deputy has a remedy. He was concerned about why we were extending it to nine months. According to Fianna Fáil it was being extended because we would have very long periods of unemployment.

I asked why it was being extended for another three months.

The Deputy is the spokesman for social welfare. He has been questioning this. Is he opposed to it being extended for a full 12 months?

The Parliamentary Secretary is missing the point.

I am not. The Deputy cannot have his loaf and eat it. When he gets up and makes all those statements——

The Parliamentary Secretary is not allowing me to answer the question.

Let the Deputy answer it. If we were to extend the pay-related benefits for 12 months would the Deputy oppose it?

If the Parliamentary Secretary will give me five minutes I will explain.

I cannot give the Deputy five minutes. I have been delayed unnecessarily by irrelevant contributions and repetitions from that side of the House since 10.30 this morning so unfortunately I cannot give the Deputy five minutes.

The answer is yes or no.

Deputy Coughlan is out of order.

We listened to Fianna Fáil telling us that all the progressive legislation, as far as social welfare was concerned, was introduced by them.

It cannot be denied.

There is a little inconsistency which we should clear up. The flat rate benefit is payable for a 12-month period. There does not seem to be any objection to that. That seems to be totally acceptable because it was introduced by Fianna Fáil, so the period in which a person is unemployed does not seem to be of any great concern to them. It is only the rate of benefit they enjoy during the period of unemployment which worries them.

That is why we introduced the pay-related scheme.

If they get a flat rate benefit for 12 months it is totally acceptable to Fianna Fáil but if they get pay-related benefit, which cushions them and their families against the evils of unemployment, that is not acceptable apparently to them. They should make up their minds. We have enough of the double thinking now. Fianna Fáil should make up their minds what they are against and what they are for because this hopping from one fence to the other and from one leg to the other is all over.

The Government are on shaky legs.

Are Fianna Fáil for or against this?

We are all for it.

Will interruptions please cease?

We were asked why the need for this benefit, why the need for the extension of the social welfare services?

Fianna Fáil gave the people free beef, free milk and free butter. We are giving them something different. We are giving them independence.

Deputy Callanan, Deputy Dowling and a number of Fianna Fáil Deputies asked why the need for this. All the time they were harping that the only need for it and the only thing motivating us bringing it in was to keep the lid on the unemployment question.

That is a different point.

It is not. As a matter of fact, 47 per cent of the payments from the pay-related fund is not in respect of unemployment but in respect of illness, maternity benefit or occupational injuries. I cannot understand how people can welcome a Bill and at the same time object, in the terms in which Deputy Meaney objected, to those payments being made to people who would be better off working. Of course they would. Nobody would more prefer to be working than they would. If a man is unfortunate enough to be unemployed or to suffer from a prolonged illness he is not, in my opinion, the recipient of a hand-out, as was described by the former Fianna Fáil Minister for Social Welfare. He is entitled as of right to get sufficient benefit to provide in a reasonable way for his wife and his children during those periods that quite a large number of working men suffer during the course of their working lives.

This kind of talk and loose generalisation does a lot of damage. One might be annoyed at outside people, who in some cases are described in very loose terms as leading industrialists, who make general statements and when they are asked to be more specific back away. If they quote figures on examination the figures are found to be inaccurate. While that is regrettable it is far more regrettable that Opposition Members of the House are apparently insinuating the same things. They have an opportunity of readily examining how the scheme works. They know that built into the operation of the scheme it is not possible, except in highly selective, isolated instances, for a person to get more money when unemployed than he would when employed. The only instance which comes to mind is the case of a husband, wife and two children. If that man is earning £20 a week and becomes unemployed, he gets £20.80 from social welfare. I do not regard that as a reflection on the operation of the social welfare system. I regard it as a reflection on some of the employers we have in Ireland who will ask a man to work for £20 a week. That is where the examination should take place, not within the social welfare system. That is where the criticism should be directed, not towards the social welfare system.

That is what I said.

Some of the gentlemen outside the House who, in relation to the operation of the system, are trying to distort the facts are in very well paid employment. They have the guarantee they will never have to face unemployment and if they are unfortunate enough to suffer from a prolonged illness they are assured that they, their wives and their children will be adequately looked after financially during that period. Those are the people who are most vocal against giving proper payments to unemployed and sick workers.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary deny having that man's wife and children looked after?

I most certainly would not but I deny them the right to try to deny it to others.

Employers will not get away with that.

Unfortunately, some people appear to wish to get away with it and some people on the other side of the House also appear to wish to aid and abet them in doing it. All the Deputies have to do is to look through the record of the contributions made here today from the Fianna Fáil benches and they can come to no other conclusion.

You are afraid to go to the people.

The people will judge it.

We were meant to have a general election last week. What has happened?

We will have a general election. I cannot give the date but I can give the result.

You are living on borrowed time and borrowed money.

We are wandering away from the motion. Allow the Parliamentary Secretary to continue.

In fairness, Deputy Andrews made one of the more serious contributions.

You are rubbing in the palmolive.

I am just making a statement of fact. If you like to read the record when it is published you will find that that cannot be contradicted. You should have heard the contributions that came across here today. It makes sad reading. It was Deputy Hussey who asked about agricultural workers not being included in pay-related benefits. It is true that in the original Bill that was passed through the House by Fianna Fáil, a fact about which they are so insistent, agricultural workers were excluded but in our wisdom, by ministerial order, we included them. Agricultural workers benefited in that respect also from the change of Government. They are now included in the pay-related scheme.

Deputy Andrews and Deputy Gene Fitzgerald wanted to know the reason for the 30 per cent rate of benefit in the extended three-months period. That was best answered, in fact, by a contribution by Deputy Joe Brennan. As the House is aware, this scheme is in operation only since April, 1974 and it is not possible to give an overall judgment on its operation in that short period. We feel that it is prudent to advance relatively cautiously in extensions of the scheme. There is no increase in contributions embodied in this Bill although the period is being extended by 50 per cent. Deputy Brennan gave a very honest report to the House on his experience with a similar type of Bill, the Redundancy Payments Bill. He said that the fund was in a very healthy state. He extended both the monetary benefit and the period and found, much to his surprise and, I am sure, dismay, that the redundancy fund had gone into financial difficulties in a very short period of time.

One has to be influenced by an experience like that where a Minister, with the best possible intentions, proceeds to improve an existing scheme and finds that, by not exercising prudence, the scheme ends up in financial difficulties. Because of the newness of the scheme, the limited period of its operation, it is felt that prudence should be exercised in this regard. That should meet the queries by the Deputies.

I do not see much point in going into much more of what was said. Most of it was repetitious, I am afraid. I have dealt with most of the points that were raised repeatedly. There is only one thing I would ask. When I say I resent criticism of the scheme I would not like to be misunderstood. I have made a serious call for public debate on the whole area of social welfare. That debate is not only desirable, it is necessary. I do not think we can make any progress unless all the people are involved in discussion, in debate and in criticism of the social welfare services, the level of benefits, the various defects in their operation, et cetera. I do not want to be mis-interpreted as wishing that kind of debate to be discouraged. I want it encouraged. I welcome it. I object most strongly to people, whether they be newspaper columnists, politicians, would-be leading industrialists, groups or persons, generalising and in some cases distorting the facts as to the operation of pay-related benefit. They are not doing a service to the community. They are doing a dishonest day's work as far as the unemployed are concerned. Certainly, criticise the scheme but criticise it on the basis of fact. That, surely is a reasonable request.

Could I ask the Parliamentary Secretary, as is traditional, a number of questions?

I do not think it is traditional. I have had this on every Bill where the Deputy has got up after the Second Reading debate and made a second speech. I do not accept that as traditional. I have had enough of it all day.

The Chair will allow a few questions.

I very much appreciate that. I am surprised at the Parliamentary Secretary who represents himself as being a liberal.

The Deputy should be thankful that he had not to sit here and listen to the irrelevant contributions from that side of the House all day.

We had to put up with an awful lot more than that and did it without moaning.

I am extremely surprised at the former liberal's arrogant attack on the Opposition for producing a number of constructive views on the Bill. The Parliamentary Secretary seems to have got lost in emotion, in hysteria, attacking everybody. Would the Parliamentary Secretary be good enough to explain why he reduces the figure to 30 per cent of reckonable earnings on the one hand and, on the other hand, makes the point that the cost of the implementation of the items in this Bill is £1.8 million? I have asked him on numerous occasions to account for the £5 million which was collected up to 31st January, 1974 in contributions from employer and employee to the amount of £8 million. There was £3 million of this paid out in entitlements, leaving a balance of £5 million. Would the Parliamentary Secretary tell us how much there is in the social welfare pay-related fund? They are two simple questions. If the Parliamentary Secretary does not want to answer, that is a matter for him.

I thought I had dealt with the question of the 30 per cent element in the extended period.

In relation to the redundancy fund but not in relation to the Parliamentary Secretary's proposals in this Bill.

Yes, in relation to that. I thought I said it was a similar type of Bill. Deputy Brennan when he was extending the Redundancy Payments Bill did so, as I acknowledged, with the best possible intentions and made, in my opinion, a progressive amendment to the Bill but, as he stated here today, having done that, the fund, from being in a relatively healthy financial position very quickly reached the point where it was on the verge of bankruptcy.

That is the redundancy payments fund. What is the position about this fund?

The Deputy does not seem to be able to connect what I am trying to say. This is a somewhat similar type of scheme. It is a very new scheme. It was only in operation a full 12 months last month. As was said here in the debate on the Social Welfare Bill a short time ago, it is not possible to get a full picture of the social welfare accounts until three months after the end of the financial year. It would not be in the best interests of the fund to go too wild at this stage with its resources. We believe this is a progressive proposal and will meet the requirements which it is intended to meet but will not endanger the operation of the pay-related fund.

How much is in the fund?

The Deputy——

We will deal with it on Committee Stage if that is the attitude.

The attitude of the Chair is that the Deputy was allowed to ask two questions and he was answered.

This was one of the questions asked and it was not answered.

What is the amount of money in the fund?

The Deputies over there seem to think there is some secret about this. This fund will not end up before the Committee of Public Accounts like other funds.

Stop bluffing. It is normal procedure to give the figure.

It is not only normal procedure but this figure has been given to Deputy Andrews in reply to a parliamentary question.

Well, give it to us again.

We have at the moment parliamentary questions in——

Have they been answered?

They have not been arrived at.

That is the answer.

I am only trying to make the point that there is no secrecy involved. There is no evasion involved. Do not be so worried about it.

I am not worried. I am concerned.

It is part of the general social welfare fund.

What is the amount?

These are published figures. The surplus, I understand, in the pay-related part at the moment is in the region of £5 million.

Is that not a special fund?

No.

I think I am right in saying that when the Parliamentary Secretary gave some details up to a date in last year he showed that at that time there was approximately a £5 million surplus. Has he any later figures than that?

I think I have. That was the December figure. The latest figure would be approximately £7 million.

Up to what date?

Up to March.

The surplus has gone up by £2 million in three months?

Yes.

Would the Parliamentary Secretary not consider that he should be reducing the contribution and certainly not reducing the 40 per cent to 30 per cent?

I do not think, at this stage that would be in the best interests of anybody. If the Deputy cares to look at the experience of the redundancy fund, the very healthy financial position in which it appeared to be and the very severe difficulties in which Deputy J. Brennan, as Minister for Labour, found himself by not exercising caution, he will appreciate that it is in everyone's interest that we should proceed with due caution.