andMr. Andrews asked the Minister for Social Welfare if, in view of the fact that the income to the pay-related benefit scheme is double the expenditure, he will reduce the employers' and the employees' contributions.

I would refer the Deputies to my replies to questions by Deputy Andrews on 30th November, 1976, 19th February, 1976 and 18th December, 1975, in which I pointed out that any surplus income which arises on the operation of the pay-related benefit scheme is paid into the social insurance fund. As a result of the extensions in the duration of pay-related benefit over the last 18 months, expenditure is now coming much closer to receipts. It is estimated that receipts in the year 1977 will amount to £24.5 million and that expenditure, including administration cost, will be almost £20 million.

Is the Parliamentary Secretary aware that in reply to a question put down recently by me it was shown that the amount taken in contributions to this scheme was double the expenditure, approximately £52 million income as against £26 million expenditure? Is the Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that the contributions should remain at the present level when the Department is making 100 per cent profit at a time when unemployment is at an all-time high?

The Deputy quoted figures that I gave in reply to a previous question. That would be over a given period of time. My concern, and I am sure the Deputy will share that concern, is that the fund will remain solvent. As the Deputy is aware from my reply, with the extension of the periods of eligibility for pay-related benefit, which does not apply solely to unemployment benefit but also to disability benefit and maternity benefit, there is a much greater demand on the fund and the figures I have quoted in the answer show clearly that the fund would be endangered by any reduction in the contributions paid.

Surely the Parliamentary Secretary would agree that the finances for disability benefit and the other benefits he mentioned are got from the employer and the employee in the social insurance stamp. Would he agree that the exorbitant amounts being collected under this scheme over and above need are so great as to be as much of a deterrent to production as any other part of tax, and in those circumstances would he not agree that the proper thing to do at a time like this, when unemployment is so high and we are so concerned about improving the employment situation, would be to reduce the contributions?

As I informed the Deputy, eligibility under the pay-related scheme is not confined to unemployment. The scheme also pays in repect of disability benefit and maternity benefit. It is also fair to say that the people who benefit under the pay-related scheme who suffer either from unemployment or disability for a duration of time would be very concerned about the fund going broke. I am also quite satisfied that as far as the vast majority of employers are concerned they are happy to see a situation in which some degree of financial security is afforded to their workers during temporary lay-off periods, periods of unemployment or disability. It is essential that the fund be kept in a healthy financial state and the figures I have quoted in my formal reply to the Deputy would show that it would not be possible without endangering the future of the fund to reduce the contributions.

Could the Parliamentary Secretary tell the House regarding his most recent calculations, which he must have done prior to the budget, any changes he has made in the application of this pay-related benefit? How near does the calculated income go to meet the calculated output over the period ahead, say, for the year?

Does the Deputy mean the present year?

Yes.

It is estimated that the receipts in the present year will be approximately £24.5 million and expenditure will be approximately £20 million so there is not what could be called a very great surplus.