asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development, arising from the discussions at the recent European Council on unemployment in the European Economic Community, if he is satisfied that the Government's unemployment reduction target for 1978, as outlined in its White Paper National Development 1977-80 will be met.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Reduction Target.
4.
The EEC discussion recognised the need for higher growth in the Community as a precondition for reducing unemployment. This is consistent with the view taken by the Government here from the outset and Government policies have been geared to achieve a 7 per cent GNP growth rate this year which is substantially above the expected average for the EEC as a whole. The Government aim to reduce the numbers out of work by 20,000 in 1978 and the White Paper on National Development outlined the strategy and conditions for reaching this target. I am satisfied that we are on course for achieving the proposed reduction.
Would the Minister say whether he accepts the estimated rate of growth as forecast by the Central Bank as being 5½ per cent as compared with 7 per cent in the White Paper?
No, I do not.
That is a separate question.
It is by inference related to the reference of a 7 per cent target mentioned in my reply. On the basic indicators growth in output, whether it is for industry, building and construction, agriculture, exports, imports and so on, on the whole there is a very high degree of similarity between the forecasts of the Central Bank and that prepared by the Government. The main points of difference are that the Central Bank forecast a faster rate of growth in imports than the Government forecast and they also forecast a slower rate of growth in agricultural stocks. While these differences affect the forecast for the measure of growth in GNP, they have no significant effect on the forecasts for employment which are the primary purpose of the question.
Does the Minister still expect that the unemployment figure shown by the live register as now compiled will be reduced to approximately 85,000 by the end of the current year?
I never said that. I thought we had that discussion at the time of the publication of the White Paper several months ago when I made clear that there was not a direct simple one-to-one relationship between increases in the numbers of people at work and reductions in the numbers of people registered as unemployed on the live register. If we needed a crude working relationship, the available evidence appears to suggest that every increase in employment of say 100 was accompanied by a fall of between 50 to 65 in the numbers on the live register. Therefore, meeting the targets set by the Government of a 20,000 increase in numbers at work, that is a reduction in the numbers out of work, does not imply a fall of 20,000 in the numbers on the live register. I have said that on several previous occasions.
Would the Minister say what he anticipates the live register will be at the end of the year using the same criteria he used when compiling the figures?
Depending on which of the figures one takes, the ratio of 50 per 100 or 65 per 100, we would be talking of figures for the live register by the end of the year of somewhere in the region of about 92,000 to 100,000.
The last supplementary.
Using the figures the Minister has given, or accepted as being approximately accurate, the total increase in employment has been approximately 14,000 according to the answer given by the Minister last week, the numbers coming onto the work force are approximately 14,000 to 15,000 and the numbers emigrating, which the Minister has also accepted as being approximately accurate——
The Deputy is making a long speech.
——are approximately 10,000. If we add all those up we will find that they far exceed the number of jobs created and we are now approximately 4,000 to 5,000 less well off as far as employment is concerned than we were when the Minister took office.
I do not accept that at all.
The Minister can hardly refute his own figures.
Deputy Kelly.
The Deputy is trying to quote a reply which I gave to the House last Thursday when I said that for the last 12 months the best estimate we had was that there had been an increase of 14,000 in the numbers at work. I stand over that estimate as the best available one, but that tells us nothing about whether we are or are not on course for our target, neither does it relate to the level of employment for last July.
I am calling Deputy Kelly.
I will waive in favour of Deputy Cluskey.
The Chair should be the one to decide.
The Minister's reply states that it is estimated that total employment increased by 14,000 over the last 12 months.
That is correct.
The number coming on the work force has been accepted by the Minister as being approximately between 11,000 and 15,000 and the Minister accepted in a radio interview and here last week that a reasonable estimate of the number of people who have emigrated is 10,000. If we add up what has come on the work force——
That is not in the question.
——to the numbers who have emigrated and subtract that from the Minister's figure it can clearly be seen that we are 4,000 to 5,000 jobs worse off.
I must refute that. The Deputy is confusing different pieces of information that have no bearing on each other. Adding up emigration and the numbers entering the labour force tells nothing about the number of people at work. I respectfully suggest that the Deputy go away and look at it again.
It tells the number of people who are not at work.
Especially where the Deputy is talking about emigration from away back.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Kelly had a chance to ask a question and refused to accept it. We are not having any more supplementaries.
Fair enough.
(Interruptions.)
Question No. 5.