Vol. 310 No. 7
asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if he is satisfied that the Government target of reducing the total number of unemployed by 20,000 during 1978 will now be achieved; and, if not, the new plans the Government have drawn up to create new jobs.
19.
asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development the anticipated shortfall in the reduction of unemployment on 31 December, 1978, as compared with the Government's original forecast.
With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, I propose to take Questions Nos. 18 and 19 together.
As the official measurement of employment is based on a mid-April estimate a firm estimate of the net employment increase by end-1978 cannot be made until the mid-April 1979 figures are available. However, taking the trend in industrial employment combined with the impact of the Government's special job creation programme, the 1978 target could be exceeded if the present rate of redundancy diminishes. If, however, redundancies continue at their present level for the remainder of the year, there could be a shortfall in the range 2,000-3,000 from the 1978 target of 20,000.
On a point of order——
Would the Deputy permit me to answer the question?
I am making a point of order.
The Deputy is making it before I have even answered the question.
On a point of order, Questions Nos. 18 and 19 refer specifically to the reduction in unemployment. I take it that the Minister is going to answer that.
Will the Deputy please resume his seat. The Deputy's name is not on either question.
I am a Member of the House and I want direct answers to specific questions.
The Minister is entitled to give the reply.
He is avoiding it.
I did not know that the Deputy had powers of prophecy.
On a point of order, has the Minister finished his reply?
On a point of order, what is the position where a Minister is interrupted before he has even given a reply?
I am not interrupting the Minister. I am entitled to make a point of order.
I have asked the Deputy to resume his seat. The Deputy has no right to get up when the Minister is answering.
On a point of order, surely a Minister has no right to distort the questions he was asked?
The Deputy should not make reference to that until the reply is finished.
Will you excuse me a moment.
The Minister is going to re-write the answer.
No, I am not.
The Chair is not concerned about the form of the reply the Minister makes but he is concerned about the Minister being interrupted while he is making the reply, or any other Deputy. It cannot happen.
That is your problem. We are concerned with the reply.
It is my problem definitely and I will deal with it.
The Minister was leading up to his reply but he is changing tactics now.
I want to draw the attention of Deputies to the fact that we also have later questions which border on the same subject. If anybody feels that I evade any aspect of the questions I will be delighted to deal with it through whatever supplementaries the Deputies care to ask if perchance I fail to answer the questions asked.
If Deputy Collins does not cease preventing the Minister from continuing I will have to ask him to leave the House.
I want a fair answer to a specific question.
I take it that I am answering Questions Nos. 18 and 19 and, I, therefore, propose to repeat the reply.
As the official measurement of employment is based on a mid-April estimate a firm estimate of the net employment increase by end-1978 cannot be made until the mid-April 1979 figures are available. However, taking the trend in industrial employment combined with the impact of the Government's special job creation programme, the 1978 target could be exceeded if the present rate of redundancy diminishes. If, however, redundancies continue at their present level for the remainder of the year, there could be a shortfall in the range 2,000-3,000 from the 1978 target of 20,000. This possible outturn suggests that gross employment increases in 1978 will be in the region of 35,000.
Options for extra measures to create additional employment were outlined in the Green Paper "Development for Full Employment" and the forthcoming White Paper will set out decisions on these.
The reason why I have classed the reply in the form of additions to employment is that all along our targets for reductions in unemployed have been taken as relating to increases in employment.
No.
The Deputies may ask their supplementaries and challenge me when I am finished.
I challenge the Minister when he is not truthful.
The Deputy may make that allegation when I am finished. I was making the point that at no stage was that target figure of 20,000 reduction in unemployment related to a 20,000 reduction in the live register. Indeed, I specifically rejected such an approach.
In this House I specifically rejected that approach and said that, by definition, if there were fewer more people at work there were fewer people out of work.
The Minister was not in the House when he made that statement.
I repeated it inside the House. I made the same statements outside. I am replying here on the basis of the best estimate which I can now give of the increase in employment this year, namely that 17,000, which, therefore, is the best estimate I can give of the reduction in unemployment this year.
Would the Minister accept that if a level of redundancies is high it is just as much a reflection on the Government's ineffectiveness as a failure in job creation, if not more. If you can print the money you can at least pay people to sit behind desks.
I do not accept that it reflects a failure of the Government because that is to imply that they control every act of economic importance throughout the economy. We are not living in a dictatorship or a totally dirigist régime.
The Government claimed that there would be a big reduction in unemployment.
The Government did not so claim. The Government claimed that they would operate a job creation programme which, taken in conjunction with the expected behaviour of other sectors of the economy, would produce a certain overall result. If you do not get the expected behaviour elsewhere you cannot expect to achieve the same overall result. I would have thought that was fairly straightforward.
With specific regard to the Minister's reference to the best estimate for unemployment would he not agree that up to the time this Government came into office and for some months afterwards until they found a way to wangle their way out of it, the live register was the traditionally accepted best estimate of unemployment? How can he now maintain that in the time that they promised that unemployment would be reduced by 20,000 the live register has gone down by only 8,000?
I do not so agree because even before the election I recall that there were many disputes and debates about the true level of unemployment. We made the point then that the true level of unemployment was significantly higher than the figures recorded by the live register. I stand by that approach which was made before the election, during the election and after it. I hope I can get that bit on the record.
I am quite happy to reply to the Deputies one at a time. If the Deputies want a shouting match where they all bay like wolves let them go ahead.
The Minister is playing games.
I am not playing games. The circus was on that side of the House to be subsidised by the Arts Council. I do not think the dramatic content merits such an award but that is another thing.
On the basis of a static criteria, which is the Live Register, is the following statement not one that the Minister will have to agree with, "That in June 1977 the live register stood at approximately 111,000 and today the live register stands at approximately 98,000"? In that period 14,000 people have emigrated and the effect has been——
This is a question with argument.
No, it is not.
We could easily have a debate on this. I understand there is to be an Adjournment Debate the day after tomorrow.
Those statistics are a great illustration of the old remark about lies, damn lies and statistics. Every year the live register falls in summer and rises in winter. The categories eligible for the live register have altered. In reply to the Deputy's questions in the House some months ago I gave an estimate of the relationship between movements in the live register and movements in total employment.
There is an obligation on the Chair——
I have a right to defend myself against accusations of being dishonest.
——to ensure that the same order emanates from the front bench of the Government side as from any other part of the House.
When the Minister is replying, no other Deputy should be on his feet.
The Minister interrupted my supplementary. He has been endeavouring to distort the commitment given by Fianna Fáil.
This is argument. We are not having a debate on this question.
The commitment given was that they would reduce unemployment.
Question No. 20.
While accepting the Minister is well up to the standard of honesty of his party, if not above it, would he accept that for four-and-a-half years the Parliamentary Secretary to the Taoiseach in the last Government answered questions about unemployment and never once suggested, nor was invited by the Government to suggest, that there was any way of measuring unemployment other than the live register?
I am not responsible for replies given by the previous Government.
But the Minister's party when in opposition were quite happy to accept that as a criterion.
Is it not a fact that the live register is down by only 11,000 compared with this time last year when the same seasonal factors would apply?
Yes.
Would the Minister agree that emigration in 1978 is substantially higher than it was in 1977? Would the Minister not agree that many thousands of extra people are in what can only be called short-term "cosmetic" employment or so called "training" and that the true unemployment figure is perhaps even greater than last year?
I do not accept that the true unemployment figure is greater. If emigration is introduced as a factor which affects the number of people looking for work, the fact must also be introduced that the population is growing and there are more young people leaving schools and colleges and looking for work. If the Deputy wants a debate on the total seeking work and the total who have found work, let us have it. I have given the best estimate available to me of the increase in employment which has taken place this year and this is the largest increase in any single year since the foundation of the State, an achievement of which to be proud.
We are getting into a debate. I am calling the next question.
How would the Minister define "jobs"?
