asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if, in view of the continued high rate of unemployment in spite of the Government's recent plans for its alleviation, it has decided to amend its proposals in order to speed up the rate of job creation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Job Creation.
22.
The Deputy presumably has in mind the Government's special programme for the creation of 20,000 new jobs in the public sector, building and construction and youth employment. This programme is well on course and the expectation is that the target will be achieved by the end of the year.
The need to sustain special job creation programmes is recognised and the Government's plans for 1979 will be incorporated in the forthcoming White Paper on the economy and the 1979 Budget.
Can the Minister indicate his position now in respect of his suggestion taken up in the national press some months ago that if the employment targets of the Government were met, unemployment by the end of this year would be of the order of 85,000? It is now of the order of 98,000.
Earlier this year I said in this House that the relationship between increases in employment and movement in the live register was such that for every increase of 100 in employment the fall in the live register was estimated at between 50 and 65, that is, a half to two-thirds. Taking the lower of those figures, the reduction of 11,000 in the live register, seasonally adjusted, would imply an employment increase of 22,000. Taking the two-thirds figure, the reduction of 11,000 implies an increase in employment of 16,500. It can be seen that the estimate of 17,000 which I have put forward is closer to the bottom range of the possible estimates. It could well be that the actual increase in employment using that relationship would be of the order of 22,000, but I have deliberately opted for the more modest and conservative increase in employment because I did not want to be accused by the Opposition of any exaggeration or overstatement.
(Interruptions.)
In making all these calculations, do the Minister or the Government take any responsibility at all for redundancies?
Where redundancies can in any way be attributed to a failure or shortcoming on the part of Government policies, yes; but not where that failure is due to the behaviour of others.
The Minister will excuse me if I confess to not fully understanding his answer. Would he explain how he can reconcile the figure of 98,000 unemployed with his own confident assertion that if employment targets were met the unemployment figure would be in the region of 85,000? It is now in the region of 98,000.
I do not recall such a statement on my part. I recall saying it could be in the range of 90,000 to 94,000, but that would be before adding on the additional women who would qualify under the change in benefits. That is the statement I made earlier this year.
This is crucial to the whole debate. What is the Government's definition of "job"? Is it working for six weeks on an unemployment survey in Ballyfermot? Is it working for six months in a work experience scheme? Is it working for 52 weeks a year?
There is nothing in the question about the definition of a job. The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.