asked the Minister for Labour the number of jobs attributable to the extension of the Employment Incentive Scheme to include the insurance and banking sectors, the sum proposed to be expended in the current year; if is is intended to continue the operation of the scheme; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

16.

asked the Minister for Labour the amount expended on the extension of the Employment Incentive Scheme to the insurance sector and the number of jobs created as a result, and the amount proposed for the current year; if it is intended to continue the operation of the scheme and if he will make a statement on the matter.

With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take questions Nos. 15 and 16 together.

Up to the week ended 28 March 1980 a total of £490,986 has been paid under the employment incentive scheme in respect of the additional employment of 1,320 workers in the banking and insurance sector. A sum of £4.11 million has been provided in the 1980 Estimates for the employment incentive scheme.

Having regard to the present economic and financial situation, and the need to achieve savings in public expenditure, I have notified participating firms that it is not possible to continue payment of premia to banks and insurance companies.

As regards the future of the scheme, the position is that any scheme of this kind is always subject to review in the light of prevailing circumstances.

When was it decided that the banking and insurance premia will no longer be paid?

At the beginning of this month.

From what date will they cease to be paid? Will they receive a premium for people already in employment?

Yes.

How much is the saving to the Department?

It can only be an estimated saving.

How much is it?

I do not have the figure.

If the Minister has not the figure, how does he know it can only be estimated?

It could only be an estimated saving.

What is the estimation?

I do not have an estimate.

Is the Minister telling the House that the decision was made in order to save money but that he has no estimate of how much money is being saved?

I said in my reply that, having regard to the present economic and financial situation and the need to achieve savings in public expenditure, I have notified participating firms that it is not possible to continue payment of the premia to banks and insurance companies.

The Minister has not even estimated how much money the implementation of this decision would save?

I have given the expenditure to date, which is a factual answer.

I will repeat my question in case the Minister did not understand. He said in reply to the original question that this scheme was being discontinued because of the scarcity of money and he was then asked what the saving would be. Is he seriously telling the House that a decision was made on the basis of saving money but no estimate was made of the amount which would be saved by the implementation of this decision?

I did not refer to a scarcity of money or funds. I said that because of the economic and financial situation there was a need to achieve savings in public expenditure.

Will the Minister say what saving he hopes to achieve?

It can only be an estimated figure because it would be governed by the number taken into these two industries from the beginning of this month.

That is the logic of it, but will the Minister say what the estimate is?

I do not have an estimate.

Would the Minister agree that one of the gravest aspects of the present economic situation is the growing unemployment figure? Would the Minister not accept that the decision now announced to the House will add to the unemployment situation? In view of this will the Minister review this serious cutback in the employment incentive scheme?

I would not see this as a cutback but as being in the interest of manufacturing and service industries who may be in greater need of this money than the banking and insurance industries in the present economic climate.

Would the Minister not agree that one of the most serious economic factors is high unemployment and that this measure will add to the problem?

I could not so agree.

How much money was paid under this scheme to banking and insurance companies in 1979?

I do not have that information. I have given the total figure spent under the scheme. I have not a breakdown but I can supply the Deputy with the information.

Would the Minister give the total figure and tell us how long the scheme is in operation?

The scheme has been in operation since September 1977 and the amount of money paid out was £490,986.

The insurance companies and banks probably got about £150,000 per year and the saving for 1980 will be in the region of £100,000. Is that not the estimate which the Minister says he cannot make?

The Minister's figures are wrong.

I have not the information for which the Deputy asks.

Is it not the case that the Minister's Department have already made an estimate of the saving but the Minister will not give the figure? Would the Minister not agree that it would be far better to spend this money on recruiting people to these two industries rather than employing five totally unnecessary Ministers of State purely to give jobs to the boys?

I believe this to be a very wise decision at a time of economic difficulty. Banking and insurance companies are well equipped to finance their own recruitment whereas other industries in the manufacturing and services sector can be aided by the scheme. It is a wise decision in the present situation.

Was it a wise decision to increase the number of Ministers of State by 50 per cent?

May I ask the Deputy a question in return?

On a point of order, in view of the grave news the Minister has given to the House and the unsatisfactory replies to supplementary questions, I wish to give notice of my intention to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy.