asked the Taoiseach the reason for the increase of over 2,800 persons in the number of unemployed between 14th and 28th October, 1966.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Increase.
3.
I would refer the Deputy to the reply which I gave to his similar question addressed to me in this House yesterday. The factors indicated in that reply apply generally to the period now mentioned and were offset by some increased employment— principally in sugar manufacture.
The Parliamentary Secretary told me yesterday that the increase in the previous fortnight of 2,300 unemployed was offset by increased employment in the sugar industry. The fact remains, however, that the net increase in unemployment was 2,300. In the fortnight referred to here, the net increase is 2,500, after allowing for what the Parliamentary Secretary says is increased employment in the sugar industry. Do all these excuses which the Parliamentary Secretary gives explain the increase in the number of unemployed since 16th September of 6,000?
The Deputy asked about the period 14th to 28th October. The principal increases in the live register in that period were (1) dockside employment at the different ports, which showed a disimprovement, with the exception of Sligo; the net decrease is 369; (2) a seasonal slackness in agriculture, which accounted for 241; a seasonal slackness in hotels, 153; Bord na Móna, which is, of course, seasonal, 240; county council employment, also seasonal, 132; and a lay-off in the Hospitals Trust of temporary staff, 61. That was offset by a net increase of 68 in the number of people employed by Comhlucht Siúicre Éireann.
It is a long way off the 6,000 increase in unemployment in six weeks.
Would the Parliamentary Secretary say whether or not this increase over this period is unusual?
No.
Has he got a similar figure for a similar period in the year 1965?
That is a separate question.
And it shows a different answer. It will not be given today.