asked the Minister for Social Welfare if he proposes to reduce the percentage of the gross income payable by the employer and employee for pay-related benefit purposes.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Pay-related Benefit Scheme.
25.
The scheme of pay-related benefit is not yet twelve months in operation and it would not be possible in such a short period to make a realistic assessment of the existing provisions for its financing and consequently of the future effect of any alteration therein. I do not, therefore, propose at the present time to make any change in the basis of financing of the scheme.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that when I queried the estimated income and expenditure during the discussion on the pay-related benefit scheme he informed me that the income would be approximately £12 million and the outgoings approximately £10 million? I asked why the extra £2 million and he gave me the same answer as he gave me today, that it was not possible at that stage to estimate the costings. Does he recall that in reply to a Dáil Question on Thursday, 13th February last, he stated that the income for nine months to the end of December last was £8,317,000, while the money paid out, including administrative expenses, was £2,943,000? Would he not agree that the excess of income over expenditure is far too high, especially when one remembers that the outgoings occurred during a period of very high unemployment?
I do not necessarily agree. As the Deputy knows, three months in this area can make quite a difference to one's overall view of the operation of the scheme. I agree it appears that the scheme is in a healthy financial state and I am very pleased that it is. As the Deputy is aware, previous schemes of a somewhat similar nature have run into financial difficulties and when one is introducing a new scheme one has a reservation that it might run into difficulties. On the figures I gave and which the Deputy has quoted, it appears that this scheme will not run into such difficulties but it would not be wise— I am sure that on reflection the Deputy will agree—to start making changes in the financing and operation of the scheme until at least a 12-month period has gone by.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that in the context of the enormous increase in the price of the stamp, involving employee and employer, in relation to the social insurance fund, it would be reasonable that they should expect, when the profit on income over expenditure in the pay-related benefit scheme is more than £5 million, that some assistance will be given to employers and employees in relation to the amount they have to pay?
The Deputy is raising a bigger and wider issue.
The Deputy, in the statement he has quoted, took me out of context. I know he has not done so deliberately. He cited a particular period when the scheme was in operation. It is not possible for any of us to assess on the basis of a 12-month operation of the scheme because the scheme has not been in operation for that period.
Does the Parliamentary Secretary not agree that the outgoings on this scheme, less than £3 million in a period when quite a considerable amount of pay-related benefits must have been paid out because of high unemployment, should mean that the Parliamentary Secretary would have a reasonable idea as to the expected total outgoings in a 12-month period?
The Deputy will agree that from the end of December to the end of March there will also be a considerable number of people who will be unemployed who will be eligible for benefits under the scheme. One would get a reasonable idea of what the overall picture will be but I think it would be very unwise to make judgments and decisions on a partly clear picture when one has only to wait a relatively short period to get a correct assessment.
Will it be reviewed when the Parliamentary Secretary has the full figures at the end of March?
Naturally it will be reviewed.
Surely the Parliamentary Secretary will agree that the income for the year appears to be near enough to the projected income, whereas the expenditure appears to be away down. He said the scheme is not likely to run into financial difficulties but that it is not the purpose of the Department to make vast sums of money out of any such scheme—that it was sufficient the scheme would pay its way——
The Deputy is engaging in argument.
I would not be prepared to make a premature judgment until this scheme has been in operation for 12 months. It would not be in the best interests of the people who depend on the scheme.
We may expect a substantial reduction in contributions shortly?
The Deputy can expect what he likes. The Deputy asked if there would be a review and he was told there would be.