We will return to the Social Welfare Vote on the question of the difference between the live register of unemployment and the quarterly national household survey. Mr. Sullivan, Iwant to go through with you again the categories of people not included on the live register of unemployment. The figure I have been supplied with, which is for February 1999, shows 207,000 on the unemployment register.
1997 Annual Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General and Appropriation Accounts (Resumed).
Vote 40 - Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs (Resumed).
Mr. E. Sullivan(Secretary General, Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs) further examined.
Mr. Sullivan
Sorry, I have the April and November figures. I thought that was what we gave you yesterday.
We chose that date for some reason. What I need is a common date between the live register and the quarterly national household survey.
Mr. Sullivan
The information I supplied yesterday gave a figure for November 1998 which probably is the closest to the last quarterly national household survey figure. We also sent the April 1999 figures.
Let us take the live register unemployment figure for November 1998. What was that figure?
Mr. Sullivan
It was 207,000.
How many people are listed in the category of casual or part-time workers?
Mr. Sullivan
I have a figure of 28,000.
Those people are included in the figure of 207,000.
Mr. Sullivan
Correct.
What about those in receipt of pre-retirement allowances?
Mr. Sullivan
They are a separate category and are not included in the figure of 207,000.
Have you a figure for that category?
Mr. Sullivan
No.
I have a figure of 11,841.
Mr. Sullivan
That would be about right.
I have a figure of 7,000 for the category of over 55s who sign on for pre-retirement credits.
Mr. Sullivan
Off the top of my head, I would say that is about right.
If one adds the 11,841 and 7,000 over the age of 55 and subtracts that total from the 28,000 casual or part-time workers and subtracts that figure from the figure of 207,000, one ends up a figure of approximately 198,000? Is that right?
Mr. Sullivan
I have not worked that out.
The figure of 207,000 less 28,000 plus 19,000 - I rounded up the number on pre-retirement allowances or credits - comes to 198,000.
Mr. Sullivan
That is correct.
The total number under the age of 55 signing on for credits is 15,553.
Mr. Sullivan
I do not understand why we are adding in the figure of 19,000.
I am trying to get a basis for comparison between the information in the quarterly national household survey and the number on the register of unemployment. The quarterly national household survey deals with all those in the workforce who are 65 years of age and under while the live register excludes a certain number of people over the age of 55 who are on pre-retirement allowances and credits.
Mr. Sullivan
Those 19,000 people declare themselves to be out of the labour force.
They do, but many of them have taken up employment.
Mr. Sullivan
If those people were surveyed, for comparison purposes, they ought to declare them as part of the labour force. That is what the survey should pick up.
We will come back to that point. I am trying to get a basis for comparison based on the same principles, in other words, to identify what causes the information in the survey and the live register to be different. I take it that there were 198,000 people under the age of 65 who claimed to be full-time unemployed in November 1998.
Mr. Sullivan
No, because by definition these people have declared themselves not to be in the labour force.
Yes, but they are out of work full-time.
Mr. Sullivan
Yes, but they have declared themselves out of the workforce.
Many people who declare themselves to be out of the workforce have taken up a jobs since and come off pre-retirement allowances.
Mr. Sullivan
If they have come off them, that is fine.
Even though they claim to be out workforce, many of them are not. Many of them are potentially in the workforce if jobs become available. The total number under 55 years of age signing on for credits only is 15,500.
Mr. Sullivan
No, that relates to people under the age of 65. There may be people signing on for pre-retirement credits who may be aged between 55 and 65 who have not declared themselves to be out of the labour force.
I take it there are two categories, one being those who sign on for credits.
Mr. Sullivan
The total of 15,000 people who sign on for credits is included in the live register figure. Those who sign on for pre-retirement credits are a separate category. They must be under the age of 65 and they are included in the live register figure.
There are also some people over the age of 55 who sign on for credits who are not getting pre-retirement credits.
Mr. Sullivan
That is correct because they still declare themselves to be unemployed and in the labour force.
The total number under the age of 65 signing on for credits who are not on pre-retirement credits is 15,500.
Mr. Sullivan
Correct.
The total number signing on for credits is 22,500, which is made up of those signing on for pre-retirement credits plus the number of 15,500. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan
No.
There are 7,000 signing on for pre-retirement credits and 15,500 signing on for credits. That means there are 22,500 only signing on for credits and not in receipt of any payments. In addition to that, there are 11,500 - I rounded up the number - signing on, but a decision has not yet been made on their payments.
Mr. Sullivan
That is correct, or their payment may be suspended or they may have submitted an appeal.
Between those three categories there are 34,000 under the age of 65 not in receipt of any payments. There are 7,000 signing on for pre-retirement credits, 15,500 signing on for credits and 11,500 whose payments have have been suspended or who are awaiting a decision on their payments. That comes to a total of 34,000. If one subtracts the figure of 34,000 from the figure of 198,000, which I mentioned earlier, one get a total of 164,000. That means there are 164,000 either in receipt of pre-retirement allowances or full unemployment benefit. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan
I have difficulty with the figure of 164,000.
Leave aside those in receipt of pre-retirement allowances——
Mr. Sullivan
Which is 11,841.
Let us say is it 12,000 when the number is rounded up. Leaving aside that number, the number on the live register in November 1998 was 207,000 of whom 34,000 did not receive any payments.
Mr. Sullivan
No, that is not true. The Chairman included the 7,000 people signing on for pre-retirement credits in that figure. They are not included in the figure of 207,000.
That is correct. A total of 27,000 are not receiving any payments.
Mr. Sullivan
That is right. As the table shows, that brings us to a figure, when it is rounded up, of 180,000 people in receipt of payments.
There are 28,000 casual or part-time workers.
Mr. Sullivan
Including the figure of 28,000 who are casual or part-time workers, gives a total of 152,000.
There are 12,000 in receipt of pre-retirement allowances.
Mr. Sullivan
They are a separate category.
They are receiving the equivalent of full-time unemployment; the amount is more of less the same, is it not?
Mr. Sullivan
Yes.
That leaves us with a net figure of 164,000 people under the age of 65 in receipt of full unemployment payment or pre-retirement allowance.
Mr. Sullivan
Yes.
That is an accurate figure.
Mr. Sullivan
There is a difference between the two categories.
What I am trying to do is to get a basis for comparison of information in the quarterly national household survey and the number on the live register.
Mr. Sullivan
I understand that, but the people who are in receipt of a pre-retirement allowance or sign on for pre-retirement credits are retired and have declared themselves to be out of the labour force.
How many of them are no longer in receipt of pre-retirement allowances or no longer sign on for pre-retirement credits and have taken up jobs?
Mr. Sullivan
I do not have that figure.
Do you acknowledge that many of them have done that?
Mr. Sullivan
They would not be entitled to the pre-retirement allowance.
While they declare themselves out of the workforce, they can go back into the workforce if a job comes up.
Mr. Sullivan
They will not be included in the 12,000 figure.
They will be counted as unemployed in the quarterly national household survey.
Mr. Sullivan
That would not be consistent with what they declare to us and that is the problem. We have mentioned this before.
That is one of the reasons there are two conflicting figures which we are trying to reconcile.
Mr. Sullivan
We have gone over this point before and we are looking at two different things.
The problem is this committee does not accept that. There is a lot of confusion and a lack of clarity which we are trying to rectify. The quarterly national household survey shows there are 106,000 people unemployed. That figure is based on an unrealistic rule of the ILO that anyone who works for one hour in the preceding week is considered not to be unemployed. That is one deficiency in the quarterly national household survey which would distort the comparison. However, when adjustments are made to the live register, there are still 164,000 people getting the full unemployment payment or its equivalent. That is 58,000 more than the quarterly national household survey. This committee wants to find out why.
You told us the last time you were here that the cost per 1,000 on the unemployment register is £3.7 million a year. The cost per 58,000 is approximately £210 million. Are we paying £210 million a year to people who are not unemployed? We want to further investigate this figure. Two hundred and ten million pounds a year is a large sum of money to lose and that is only the direct cost. There are also supplementary costs, such as medical cards, which people who claim unemployment might get, and rent subsidies.
We cannot let this matter lie. The committee feels that the figures require further detailed analysis and consideration. If the unemployment claims represent the true level of unemployment, it is shocking, particularly when one bears in mind that a further 50,023 people were in community employment, FÁS, jobstart or job initiative schemes at the end of April 1999, and the Celtic tiger will have bypassed an astonishingly high percentage of the workforce. If the unemployment figures are inflated by false claims, then the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs has been seriously remiss in not policing claims adequately. Unless the false claims figure is dramatic, the remaining number of people unemployed remains disturbingly high despite the enormous strides made in the economy in recent years.
There seems to be deliberate obfuscation between the two sets of data so as to hide the true level of unemployment. I do not know what explanation other than fraud there could be for the difference between the two figures. There may be another explanation but my view, which is shared by other members of this committee, is that there are still a large number of people claiming unemployment benefits who are not unemployed. That is what this committee is trying to probe. Our job is to root out fraud or inefficiency wherever it occurs and we must do it fearlessly, although it may not be popular to do so.
I propose that we adjourn this matter for three months and ask the Departments of Finance, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Social, Community and Family Affairs to report back to the committee within that time on the following: how to accurately measure unemployment; how to report the monthly live register in a way that clearly summarises the categories under 65 who are fully unemployed, the sum total of each such category, the grand total of these categories and the percentage of the workforce represented by it; the steps proposed to transfer to another social welfare payment those on the live register who are not fit for work because there is a category on the live register who are not capable of taking up work and who should be transferred off the live register to an appropriate social welfare payment; the further steps proposed to protect the taxpayer from funding false claims and the proposals to remove the remaining disincentives to taking up employment. I ask Mr. Sullivan to comment.
Mr. Sullivan
The Department and I had no hand, act or part in obfuscating any of the figures in relation to this. We gave the figures we have. The CSO indicates in its report that the live register is not a true measure of unemployment. That and the quarterly national household survey figures - there is the economic status as determined by the ILO or the principal economic status - show differences between the levels of unemployment. If we take the number of people who are unemployed, either on the ILO or principal economic status basis, we get a figure of 160,000. There is an overlap between the two of approximately 86,000.
You mentioned that it comes from either measure.
Mr. Sullivan
It is done both ways and it is cross-tabulated. If we take people who are recorded as unemployed either on the ILO basis, which is 106,000, or on the principal economic status basis - the second classification done in the quarterly national household survey - which is 139,000, we get a total of 160,000 people on one or the other. There are classification differences on the survey method. As the Chairman rightly pointed out, the type of question asked is specific. It is a different kettle of fish to what we are doing in terms of the administration of the schemes. The committee asked the consultant to look at this and he pointed out, as we all did here in April, that this was a question of apples and oranges and that these things cannot be reconciled down to the last one.
We are also concerned that there are categories of people on the live register who are unemployable at this stage. One of the things we are conscious of is that now that the live register has been reduced to a more manageable level and the underlying trend is downwards, it should afford us a better opportunity to get a handle on the remaining categories on the live register and to see what type of policy responses might be appropriate in those circumstances.
I am trying to clarify the figures. How many people received full weekly unemployment assistance and unemployment benefit from your Department on any recent date?
Mr. Sullivan
Some 152,000 people were paid.
The figure of 164,000 includes 12,000 people in receipt of pre-retirement allowances. My sum is correct. Allowing for those on the pre-retirement allowance, which is 12,000, the total is 164,000. Yet, we read in the papers that unemployment is down to 106,000. What percentage of the workforce is represented by that 164,000?
Mr. Sullivan
The figure of 106,000 is less than 7 per cent or it could be around 10 per cent. We would have to check the figures.
The workforce is approximately 1.5 million. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan
Yes.
So it is approximately 10 per cent. Are we now being told that in reality, the unemployment rate is 10 per cent?
Mr. Sullivan
No, we are not saying that.
We are now acknowledging that 152,000 people are receiving full unemployment payment. One of the criteria for getting full unemployment payment is that one is unemployed. Is that correct?
Mr. Sullivan
Yes, and that one is capable of work, is available for and genuinely seeking work.
The figure of 152,000 does not include casual or part-time workers, who number 28,000. They are in a different category and would have to be added to the numbers. Nor does it include those aged over 55 years who are getting a pre-retirement allowance and who number 12,000. This means that a total of 40,000 who are not fully employed are not included in the figure of 152,000. From the point of view of the committee to have 10 per cent of the workforce fully unemployed is an alarmingly high figure. It is not 6 per cent, as the official agencies have represented it. Am I wrong in saying that?
Mr. Sullivan
The CSO says it is generally accepted that the live register is not designed to measure unemployment and is not a measure that is generally accepted.
When I used the word "obfuscation" earlier I did not intend it to mean that the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs was causing obfuscation. However, the sum total of all the administrative measures causes obfuscation and hides the true level of unemployment which, from what you have told the committee, is much higher than we are led to believe.
Mr. Sullivan
I am not saying anything about the level of unemployment other than what the CSO says it is. I am referring to the number of people who, as of last November, are on our administrative schemes.
To clarify matters we ask that the tables be simplified to include all categories of those who are fully unemployed and that each category be quantified, that a sum total of these categories be provided to indicate what proportion of the workforce it represents. From the figures we have been presented with today we can conclude that all those aged under 65 years who are fully unemployed represents 10 per cent of the workforce.
Mr. Sullivan
The live register statement from the CSO provides those figures.
Not in summary. The live register indicates a figure of 207,000 but that includes 22,500 who are getting credits and 11,500 who have not yet received a payment and are awaiting a decision. They must be deducted. The committee is endeavouring to ascertain the number who are getting payments who should not be. It appears to be an alarmingly high figure.
Mr. Sullivan
I do not accept it is. The Department has a control strategy in place and there is a range of control measures the aim of which is to reduce as much as possible the amount of fraud and abuse on the unemployment payment side. I would not say there is none. I do not know the exact figure. If I did I might be able to eliminate it. However, we live in the real world. We have developed a range of measures over the years. They are reviewed periodically on an ongoing basis and are revised as necessary in the light of our experience.
The huge reduction on the live register has been due to the creation of jobs arising from the much more buoyant economic situation and to the measures we have taken over the years to tighten controls. The controls begin when people first make a claim for unemployment payment and continue throughout the life of that claim. There are also reviews.
As we have explained to the committee on previous occasions, there are units in the Department looking at different aspects of claims and at the whole claims processing areas. We try to target specific groups for attention and individual areas and sectors where we believe there may be abuse. That has proven to be very effective. We have produced reports on these, including the benefits that arise. We also use the technology to cross-tabulate and exchange information between ourselves and other agencies. A huge body of work is done on controlling the numbers of people who might be abusing the system. Some balance is needed here because I would not like people to get the view that we are doing nothing. We are making huge strides.
I understand simple arithmetic. It has now been confirmed that 152,000 people are receiving full-time unemployment payments. It has also been confirmed that an additional 12,000 people are on a pre-retirement allowance which is equivalent to a full-time unemployment payment.
Mr. Sullivan
They are not declared unemployed.
You do not deny that the pre-retirement allowance is equivalent to a fulltime unemployment payment?
Mr. Sullivan
They are under a different category.
They are unemployed and over 55 years of age and have announced they are out of the workforce. However, they can return to the workforce. If both figures are combined there are 164,000 in that category which in itself represents 10 per cent of the workforce. This does not include the numbers who are on schemes - if they were included the total would be 214,000 - nor does it include those in part-time employment.
By inappropriate presentation of the figures we may have lulled ourselves into a false sense that the unemployment problem was solved or, if it is solved, a great many people are milking the system. That is what we are trying to measure. We do not want to overstate it; we want to focus on what is a good measure of those making fraudulent claims.
Mr. Sullivan
Correct. Any time we have looked at this it is clear that the use of high level figures is not the way to address the issue. The consultants' reports also show this. On the question of falling unemployment figures, we have not taken our foot off the pedal in terms of the control activities over the past number of years. We have kept them up and, as I said earlier, we keep reviewing and revising them in the light of our experience. A number of factors have led to a reduction in the live register. One is the kind of control activities we are engaged in and will continue to be engaged in.
The reality is that there are very high numbers receiving full-time unemployment payments. In the meantime there are reported labour shortages across the economy. People are seeking workers at all levels. There is something wrong here. We have not quantified it. We will not do it today but we will investigate it in much greater detail.
The scale of the problem has shocked me. It seems to be much greater than I originally thought. I know that the system is abused and that fraudulent claims are made but the figures presented to the committee seem to indicate that the situation is more serious than I had appreciated. I accept that there may be another explanation which I missed. I have probed deeply into this matter but there is a need for the committee to investigate it further.
Mr. Sullivan
Even the consultants whose report we discussed in April came to the conclusion that we are looking at apples and oranges in respect of this matter and that they are two different things. I repeat what I said last year that anyone can look at the two things, subtract them and call it fraud and abuse.
The committee acknowledges that the quarterly national household survey measures something different. It measures those who were unemployed in the preceding week unless they worked one hour in that week. That is the ILO measure but it is an unrealistic definition of unemployment. Anyone who worked in their local shop for an hour last week was not unemployed. That measurement does not provide an accurate reflection of the unemployment figures. There must be some people in that category who worked for an hour or two.
On the other hand we know that 164,000 people under 65 years of age received the equivalent of full-time unemployment payment, that there are 50,000 on schemes, 28,000 in part-time employment and 22,000 on credits. This adds up to a shocking figure. It may be that policy makers are deluding themselves about this. Unless there is a massive level of fraud, these figures indicate that the situation is more serious than I had realised. Therefore, I propose that we investigate this matter in greater detail. Do Members wish to comment?
Could Mr. Sullivan provide a percentage figure for the level of fraud within the system?
Mr. Sullivan
No. We carried out an exercise in this area a number of years ago but fraud is very difficult to measure. There was a great deal of controversy about the reliability of our findings at the time and we have not carried out an exercise of that kind since then.
What percentage figure for fraud did the survey uncover?
Mr. Sullivan
I believe it was between 2 per cent to 3 per cent. I am more concerned now with obtaining a classification in respect of the people who are remaining on the live register for the reasons we discussed earlier. Undoubtedly, there are people who are unemployable for a variety of reasons and the figures are being masked to some extent. We are considering a number of areas to see if we can gain a grip on the situation and discover the appropriate responses needed to deal with these people; perhaps they should be on another social welfare scheme rather than in receipt of unemployment assistance. I have no doubt that that is another aspect of the problem but I could not quantify it. However, we are looking at ways of doing so.
We must also keep our foot on the control pedal in order to ensure that the activities we are undertaking are having the desired impact. With the decreasing live register figure and the processing time required, we now have the opportunity to have more in-depth interviews with people. In times when there are no jobs available, it is difficult discover who is available for and genuinely seeking work. The fact that jobs are available at present means that people can be questioned more rigorously in relation to the efforts they make to obtain employment.
Following an appearance by the Revenue Commissioners before the committee some time ago, we managed to secure additional resources for them by ensuring that they were provided with access to solicitors so they could pursue a more fulsome policy in terms of the criminal prosecution of fraudsters. Does the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs have a policy to vigorously pursue the criminal prosecution route?
Mr. Sullivan
Yes, we do have such a policy and it is set out in the Report of the Comptroller and Auditor General. On page 77 of the 1997 report, the Comptroller has provided a neat summary in respect of the number of prosecutions pursued. We consider these cases with a view to taking legal proceedings and in the more serious cases we do pursue the legal route. The report provides figures for 1997 but I have in my possession more up to date figures on the number of prosecutions in 1998.
What was the figure for 1997?
Mr. Sullivan
There were 119 prosecutions in 1997, 160 in 1998 and over 40 to the end of April this year. There would also be cases in the pipeline.
What triggers the decision to prosecute someone who defrauds the system? Is a decision made on the basis of the extent or level of the fraud involved? If a person exceeds a certain threshold in terms of the amount they defrauded, will they be automatically prosecuted?
Mr. Sullivan
It depends on the severity of the fraud and also on the level of evidence available to sustain a prosecution. If it is discovered that someone has been working and signing for a number of years resulting in many thousands of pounds being defrauded from the system, that might be a suitable case for prosecution. However, that depends on the evidence available to secure a conviction. Employers are prosecuted in cases where they might not have kept PRSI records or where they obstructed the Department in its investigations.
Is Mr. Sullivan satisfied that the Department has adequate statutory powers to facilitate it in terms of pursuing prosecutions?
Mr. Sullivan
We have not encountered difficulties in that regard at this stage. At times it has been stated that perhaps we have not pursued enough prosecutions, while at others it has been stated that we pursued too many. It is a balance between the two things.
How do the figures compare with those of the Revenue Commissioners? According to Mr. MacDomhnaill who recently appeared before the committee, the Revenue Commissioners are vigorously pursuing people who defraud the system.
Mr. Sullivan
I am not sure of the comparison and I will have to consult the figures. As I understand it, our policy has been more rigorous in recent times. The Department always had a steady flow of prosecutions interrupted only by amnesties from prosecution.
The Department does not discuss these issues with the Revenue Commissioners in terms of developing a unified prosecution policy?
Mr. Sullivan
No.
It might be worthwhile to do so because, in terms of equity, those who defraud the tax and social welfare systems should be treated in the same way.
Mr. Sullivan
I have no problem taking that suggestion on board.
We need to investigate these figures further. I believe the committee should note that the latest figures available from November 1998 show that 152,000 people are in receipt of full-time unemployment assistance or benefit and a further 12,000 are in receipt of pre-retirement allowance. This gives a total of 164,000 receiving the equivalent amount of a full unemployment payment. In addition, 22,500 people are signing on for credits, this presumably means that they are unemployed on a full-time basis but not in receipt of benefit, and 11,500 have signed on but have not received payment because their claims are awaiting a decision or are suspended.Between those three figures a total of 198,000 people claim to be full-time unemployed. In addition, 28,000 casual and part-time workers receive——
Mr. Hynes
There are some retired people in that figure.
——partial unemployment assistance or benefit. In addition to the 198,000 I mentioned, in April 1999 50,023 people were on schemes. The number on schemes in November was approximately 49,000. This is puzzling given the huge growth in the economy and huge labour shortages and calls for further explanation from the Departments of Finance, Enterprise, Trade and Employment and Social, Community and Family Affairs. How can this be given the astonishing economic growth? What are the factors behind it?
We should ask for a further report within three months, before 1 September, on this question and, specifically, the following issues - how to accurately measure true unemployment; how to report a monthly live register in a way that clearly summarises the categories under 65 who are fully unemployed, the sum total of each such category, the total of these categories and the percentage of the workforce represented by that total; the steps they propose to transfer to another social welfare payment those on the live register of unemployment who are not fit for work; the further steps they propose to take to protect the taxpayer from funding false claims and the further steps they propose to remove the remaining disincentives to taking up employment. Is that agreed? Agreed.
The Secretary General should be given an opportunity to respond because he has queries about how those numbers stacked up.
We are interested in identifying the true level of unemployment, its cost and reasons for such cost; that is our job.
Mr. Sullivan
I urge caution in regard to adding these figures. They certainly total 198,000 because, as I have said, there are different categories of people. Some are retired and I do not think that figure fully reflects what you are talking about. You cannot add apples and oranges. It is as simple as that.
I repeat the observation I made earlier in relation to survey data. The Chairman mentioned the ILO figure. There is also the principal economic status figure which shows a slightly higher level of unemployment than the ILO figure and when you try to put those together - I might be accused of adding apples and oranges here - the figure is somewhat higher when it should be the number unemployed on the ILO basis or the principal economic status basis. That works out at 160,000 and it very difficult to calculate. The CSO says that the live register is not a measure of unemployment and it relies on the quarterly national survey.
Mr. Sullivan has great experience as a Secretary General. Even the Taoiseach said that the true level of unemployment is such that effectively Ireland has full employment. It is 6.7 per cent as a percentage of the labour force but it is actually 5 per cent.
There are labour shortages everywhere.
It is important that when jobs are available we should be able to determine at least statistically what is the true level of unemployment, if any, in the system. Does Mr. Sullivan have any hunches? Obviously, he has experience of looking at these figures. What is his view on the true level of unemployment? The Department must have some idea over the years of what is the possible margin of error similar to that used in opinion polls.
Mr. Sullivan
We do not have any expertise in that area. If you look at economic textbooks, etc., you would see 3, 4 or 5 per cent unemployment as being the level of full employment. If you review the literature you will probably find that when the economy is buoyant that figure will be higher because there is more of a turnaround of people in the labour market. It is around that level.
We cannot defy the laws of arithmetic. It is not unusual that sometimes people do not want to face the truth. Society appears not to want to face the truth of this issue, yet the arithmetic clearly indicates the scale of the problem is much bigger that we are told for some reason, despite various skills shortages. FÁS is looking abroad to find people to work while 168,000 people are in receipt of full unemployment payments with another 50,000 on schemes. This committee has a job to do and it will do it. We will come back to this matter on 1 September. The committee will discuss it again on 1 July to carry out further investigations into this unacceptable phenomenon.
The committee notes the Vote.
The witnesses withdrew.
The committee went into private session.
The committee adjourned at 1.10 p.m.