Deputy Dowling gave me notice of his intention to raise the method of compiling unemployment statistics on the Adjournment.
Adjournment Debate: Unemployment Statistics.
Deputy Fitzgerald had two questions today seeking information in relation to the number unemployed. It is regrettable that the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government are not aware of the number of people unemployed. The Government should be ashamed of themselves if they know the number of unemployed and will not tell us. If they do not know, they should also be ashamed of themselves. It is pathetic to think there are so many people unemployed and the Government admit they do not know the number.
It is impossible to take corrective action if one does not know the full extent of the problem involved. The Government use the live register which gives a figure of approximately 103,000 people unemployed. Last week there was an increase in the unemployment figure of 1,200 people so a very serious situation faces the country. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary and the Government to give the full facts to the people. They should ensure that the large number of people unemployed at the moment have something to look forward to in the future but when they do not know the full facts no corrective action can be taken.
What did the Government tell the captains of industry and the people they brought together last week? The trade unions need to know the full facts. The Government do not know how many professional people are out of work. They do not know how many of those who have recently left school are unable to obtain employment. The hide-and-seek game they have been playing for the past two years must be brought to an end. There must be realism in their approach. Is it a panic situation when they are now relying on the information that comes from the statistics office which is passed on to Deputies in the House? We want to know the full facts. When we know them we can make suggestions for corrective action.
I am waiting for one even now.
We want to know the full facts so that we will have a clear picture of the situation. We will then know if the plans put forward by the Government or the Opposition will meet the situation. We saw last week where some of the people still in employment were offered pianos in their paypackets but people cannot eat them. People are now asking how many will become unemployed in the future. Some weeks ago they saw the sign outside the Mansion House: "Good Government at Work". People passing by were glad to see that somebody was at work.
What is the situation now? The Government are not working and they do not know what the unemployment situation is. They have no plans to provide employment for those people. There are many wrecked homes today in the Parliamentary Secretary's constituency, in my constituency and in many others because the Government failed to assess the situation a year ago and take the necessary remedial measures. Every day we interview distressed wives and depressed husbands. The Government do not know those people are unemployed. It is about time they revealed the true story. The Parliamentary Secretary interviews people and he does not know they are out of work because they do not appear as digits on the live register.
What does the future hold for the people still at work? Shortly many of them will join the dole queues. Do the Government intend taking any remedial action in the future? Nobody can assess the situation when we are not given correct information. The temperature of the unemployed is 103 at the moment and everybody knows what happens when one exceeds that. Reports recently have indicated that the figure on the live register will swell in due course.
Workers in CIE and the ESB are concerned about the situation because all the small factories have gone to the wall and we will now have to deal with the large industries where the scale of unemployed will be more substantial. Will the Parliamentary Secretary let us know the full facts so that we can examine the situation fully? If the Government have not got the full information in relation to this matter, there must be many other things on which they have not full information. When Deputies seek information it is the duty of the Government to give it to them. Unfortunately, they have not got the information for us notwithstanding the fact that they have more advisers than any two Governments in the past to keep them up to date on the unemployment situation. The Revenue Commisisoners could tell them how many people are out of work. There are places besides the Central Statistics Office they can get information from.
We demand that the House and the country are told the truth about the situation. The people can then assess the Government in relation to their promises and activities. They are either untruthful in indicating to the House that they do not know the full facts or if they know then this hiding of the true situation is something we will have to examine in greater detail.
Our reason for raising this matter on the Adjournment is to appeal to the Government to show, even at this late stage, a concern for the critical unemployment figures which we believe they are not showing at present. I am sorry that it is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach who is here tonight. I am sorry that the Ministers with responsibility for employment are not in the House to hear Deputy Dowling and me speak on a problem which we believe should get top priority.
Deputy Desmond, speaking on a motion some weeks ago, referred to the live register. He said the figures were misleading and, with his type of arithmetic, succeeded in reducing the figure of 102,000 odd, as it was then, to an approximate figure of 80,000. He did not add on the out workers, the professional people or the school leavers. Of course they are also unemployed people. The number of unemployed is, in fact, far greater than the figure of 103,500 which available statistics tell us it is. There is no point in any Government spokesman telling us that the live register has been compiled in the same way as it has been for many years, that the same system is employed now as was employed by Fianna Fáil. It must be the duty of any Government and any office holder to strive continuously for improvement and for the compiling of more and more statistics to enable them to proceed with corrective action and positive steps to remedy this terrible situation.
According to statistics we have at present 35,000 more people unemployed than we had at this time last year. That means 35,000 more people without wage packets plus their wives, children and other dependants. There is a growing lack of confidence. I do not want to stand here wailing continuously about the situation but I appeal to the Government to do something positive. During the emergency years, under the leadership of Éamon de Valera, we were kept out of involvement in a world war. At that time we had a problem with regard to essential supplies for our people. Positive steps were then taken by the Taoiseach and Government at that time to deal with the situation. A Minister for Supplies was appointed to handle the critical situation. I submit that at present we have a problem that needs the attention of a Government Minister. The two men primarily responsible at present, the Minister for Industry and Commerce and the Minister for Labour, have many and varied duties. The Minister for Industry and Commerce has been giving particular attention to oil development off our coast and this is understandable because it is his duty to do it, but perhaps by giving so much attention and time to that he may not have had time to devote to the current employment situation. The same applies to the Minister for Labour who has responsibilities in many fields and many time consuming duties. Would the Government consider the appointment, on a short-term basis at least, of a Minister with responsibility for employment? This is a frightening unemployment figure. Such a Minister could direct his attention to a number of things but I would suggest that he should, first of all, look at the ailing industries situation. In my opinion, there are four, four that are vital to our economy and vital if we are to maintain jobs.
On a point of order, I do not want to take up Deputy Fitzgerald's time but——
The Chair was about to intervene.
In typical fashion the Chair bows when the Parliamentary Secretary speaks.
That is an unwarranted remark.
No, I will not have that. The Deputy must withdraw it.
This was apparent last week and again tonight. I am sorry.
I will not take part in this debate if that insult is acquiesced in.
That remark must be withdrawn, Deputy.
If I have offended the Chair in any way I will withdraw any offence to the Chair.
The Chair was conscientiously about to point out that the subject matter of the question was the method of compiling unemployment statistics, and the Chair is not influenced by either side of this House.
The Parliamentary Secretary was the man who prompted the situation.
I have said I was about to intervene.
Mr. G. FitzGerald
I accept that fully, Sir, but I also submit that the Parliamentary Secretary seems to be assuming the responsibilities of the Chair in this House particularly when it is something that does not suit himself. Perhaps I may go back to the live register in the few minutes remaining to me. I believe that the Minister appointed should have responsibility for compiling proper statistics, for an analysis of the register and the industries affected by the register, the workers who remain outside the live register, such as the out workers and professional people. I would refer to something that is going to affect professional people in a big way. It is the appointment now, even by semi-State bodies, of contractors from another country at a time when our employment figures are as they are. Before the Ceann Comhairle rules me out of order for saying this I want to say why I am saying it.
I am obliged to intervene. The question was essentially a statistical one. The Deputy is now in the area of policy which is not the responsibility of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach.
Let me say——
No. You bully the Chair every day you get to your feet.
I never mean to bully you, a Cheann Comhairle.
You do it all the time. You just ride through the——
Accept that, a Cheann Comhairle, as being untrue. It would never be my intention to bully you. I respect you for your decisions.
You get nothing but courtesy from the Chair, whoever is in it, and you do this every day of the week.
I may have disagreed with the Chair at times. I am sorry, Sir. I never intended to bully you.
My reason for referring to this is that this will create unemployment for many professional people. I am sorry the Parliamentary Secretary has introduced heat to this debate. I did not intend it. I wanted to join with Deputy Dowling in saying that I believe there is no concern being shown by the Government as was instanced again today. In their two-and-a-half years of office they have not taken steps to have the live register embrace all sections of our people so that vital statistics might be available to us.
Deputy Fitzgerald foresaw and attempted to deal with in advance, but of course without success, the simple answer to the point of view implicit in the question raised here this evening, namely that there is something faulty in the method by which these statistics are collected and made available. The system has been the same certainly since I came into either House of the Oireachtas nearly six years ago and since I was getting those things through the post. The system has not changed since then.
While I agree with Deputy Fitzgerald that every Government must seek to improve on those gone before—this Government have an up-hill task in that respect—I must emphasise that everything said by Deputy Dowling, in so far as it implies that this Government were embarking on a new exercise in concealment, was totally unfounded and disgraceful. Through the Department of the Taoiseach this Government have published statistical returns in exactly the same way as they have been returned by any other government. I repudiate and reject any suggestion that figures issued by this Government are "cooked" in any way or that they understate or state wrongly the picture. If, because of the way they are compiled, they do not convey the entire picture they are not in any way the result of this Government having changed the system.
The statistical position is the same as we found it but, no doubt, we will get around to improving it as we hope to improve many other areas.
It is not necessary to emphasise to the House that the employment situation throughout the western world is disastrous. It is so bad that the greatest democracy on earth, as they proudly proclaim themselves and which has more than 200,000,000 in-inhabitants—the USA—are not able to issue a measly 1,000 visas to students who would wish to spend a couple of months in the States this year. That situation is reproduced on the same scale in other parts of the western world. We cannot expect to escape scot free. Figures quoted and questions asked in this House every week reflect our failure to escape this situation, but these figures are a by-product of the administrative process of dispensing welfare benefits to people who are without work. The figures cannot be accurate in respect of people who, for reasons of their own, do not present themselves for benefit.
There must be a large number of people who, although not presenting themselves for benefit, are the victims of the labour situation. But there is nothing new about that. School leavers seeking jobs will not be reflected on the live register but there is nothing new in that, either. It was the same ten years ago.
The difference is that there were opportunities then.
But is not the situation much more serious now?
Order, please. Deputies must allow the Parliamentary Secretary to utilise his ten minutes.
I agree that a condition of employment scarcity is one in which it is much more difficult for school leavers to find employment, because they are competing with people who have lost their jobs, but the idea that the figure would be inflated dramatically if we were merely to publish the numbers of school leavers who will be looking for jobs shortly is wrong because it is a figure which could not be substantially greater, but which may be smaller in comparison with some years than those that have gone before. Unless these figures for school leavers have accumulated with large numbers of school leavers from previous years who have not been employed at all they could not be significantly greater in number than the number of school leavers who sought employment last year or any other year.
However, since the Deputies have gone to the trouble of raising the matter on the Adjournment I can tell them that, although the figures for persons not yet at work are not collected weekly—they are collected at the five-yearly census period—in April, 1971, the number was returned at 13,318 of whom about 11,500 were in the 14 to 19 age group. I would not say that is an exact equivalent of the numbers seeking work but it will give the House an idea of the order of magnitude of the extra figure, but it is an extra figure which would have been approximately of the same order as in previous years.
That is not so. As I have said, there were job opportunities in those other years.
Order.
The figure for school leavers may be inflated or depressed by the greater or lower incidence of moving into further education or by a gradual increase in the population.
May I ask——
No, you may not.
Order.
The Deputy does not wish to hear this, but I can tell him that the figure is one which cannot be inflated by the appearance of disemployment or by the appearance of redundancy and cannot be affected by the fact that people are suddenly out of work because these are people who never were at work. In order to make that figure significantly greater than it is now the Deputy would have to allege that there was a build up from previous years so great as to make this figure this year significantly greater than in other years.
There are last year's 11,000 so that this year there will be 22,000.
That is not the case I heard being made here this evening. Of course, school leavers who are not yet employed will have to be added to the total unemployment figure.
The other point raised was that of professional people. This category, for census purposes, includes those listed as higher professional, not counting those in religious occupations, together with a further category who are employed gainfully as directors, managers and company secretaries. the figure totalled 21,000 plus in 1971. For the purpose of this debate we may describe those as professional but if the Deputy wishes to have it on a narrower basis the figure would sink to 6,000. A figure of 21,000 is a very small proportion of the number of employed people, and a relatively higher percentage of disemployment among that category would not affect substantially the total for the very large number of unemployed people.
Are the Government not concerned for those people?
Order, please.
The numbers of persons who would return themselves as out of work in the census of 1971 would be included in the global figure for that year and this was 64,692. When compared with the live register for the same period which was 59,000 plus about 5,500 additional persons who at that time were not on the register because of the employment period order, there is an extraordinary correspondence of about 64,800. That suggests strongly that any category such as that envisaged by the Deputies of professional or self-employed people who are disemployed must be tiny. I have no doubt that there are such persons.
In the first couple of years I practised at the bar I appeared in full panoply of wig and gown and I earned roughly £2 a week. I do not know whether that would be called unemployment or under-employment. I certainly regarded myself as a professional person, but I was making far less than anyone now drawing assistance would be drawing. It may be that there are social reasons why somebody who regards himself as a professional person would not register himself or describe himself as unemployed even if he is making something which is barely keeping him alive. Whatever the reasons may be, the numbers of professional people likely to return themselves as not at work in a census period are minute, or appear to be minute, so far as we have been able to calculate them from the figures I have given.
They were the good old days.
Therefore they will not materially alter the picture which Deputies are trying to draw.
The Parliamentary Secretary cannot compare 1971 with 1975.
The Government are as well aware as Deputies opposite—better in fact—that unemployment is perhaps our primary problem. Deputy Fitzgerald urges the creation of a separate Ministry to handle this problem. I do not think that is feasible but I recognise the good intention behind the suggestion. I say that merely to enforce my submission that the Government are in no way complacent or neglectful in regard to this problem. It is a horrible problem. It is one which we face in common with other countries. Trying to make it out as being worse than it is is similar to spreading demoralising propaganda when people are at war. I am sure Deputies opposite would not wish to do that. I hope the putting down of this Question on the Adjournment is not to be understood as that.
The Dáil adjourned at 11.03 p.m. until 10.30 a.m. on Wednesday, 14th May, 1975.