asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if he will relate the current live register total of unemployed persons to the total for 5 July 1977, in the light of the Government's undertaking to effect, in 1977 and 1978, an overall reduction in unemployment of 25,000.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Statistics.
13.
The Government's undertaking to reduce the numbers out of work was set out in the White Paper "National Development 1977-1980" published last January. That undertaking reflected the earlier commitment given in the pre-election manifesto. Progress on the undertaking has been substantial, and current indications suggest that the Government is within a few thousand of achieving its target of reducing the numbers out of work in 1977 and 1978 by 25,000.
It is generally accepted that there is not a one-for-one relationship between reduction in numbers out of work and reduction in the live register. In the period end-June 1977 and end-November 1978 there was a decline in the live register figures of approximately 14,000 expressed on a de-seasonalised basis. On the basis of past trends this decline is consistent with the estimated reduction in the numbers out of work.
I realise the Minister's line of tactics in dealing with questions of this kind, but would he say, since he is not willing to accept the live register as a reliable index, and since his other way of computing it is too difficult to use conversationally because it takes so long to explain, what is his estimate of the number of people this minute unemployed? How many people does he think are unemployed this minute?
We do not have an accurate estimate because we do not have——
The Minister did have it in July 1977.
We had because we were using the results of a sample labour force survey commissioned by the EEC and because I was quoting independent estimates prepared by an acknowledged expert in the field who works in the Economic and Social Research Institute.
Would the Minister accept—I heard his acknowledgment that he was going to be some thousands short of target—if he was on target the number of people unemployed now would be as low as 75,000? Would he regard that as an impossible or an improbable figure?
I would regard it as improbable. May I remind the Deputy that as far back as March last I first drew attention, on being asked similar questions, to the fact that there is not a simple relationship in increases in employment and reductions in the live register. I was asked at that time by one of the Deputy's colleagues, Deputy Quinn, and I made the point—I will repeat what I said then—that if we are talking about an increase of 20,000 at work there could be a reduction of the order of 10,000 to 12,000 in the numbers on the live register. So, if the live register falls by 10,000 to 12,000, that is consistent with an increase in employment of 20,000. I have quoted figures and the basis of them is again independent academic work most recently quoted in June 1977.
Would the Minister accept that the Labour Force Survey of April-May published last week—a miraculously good date for the statistical purposes of the Minister—shows that the number of people unemployed, having lost or given up a previous job, plus the number looking for a first regular job, was in April-May 1977 100,600, just a shade over 100,000, so that the Minister would be forced to argue, if he was claiming his target had been reached, that the reduction in unemployment has been to 75,000, which every schoolboy knows is wrong——
If the Deputy is such a good schoolboy he would know that you have to take account of at least the additions to the labour force through the growth in population and the changes in population associated with emigration where, incidentally, Deputy Cluskey's alleged fact yesterday of 14,000 is wrong by a factor of 100 per cent and, while I am on my feet, what did the Deputy mean earlier by wrong?
This is a joke. I am not responsible for Deputies Cluskey or Quinn.
It is not a joke. I will deal with the Deputy and all the others.
I would like the Minister to deal with unemployment.
The survey shows that total unemployment at a time when the Minister's party was claiming a figure of 160,000, was just a shade over 100,000.
I have quoted my best estimate that this record increase in employment is 17,000 and I have shown that that increase is consistent with the observed fall in the live register figures. I have consistently said that the live register is not an accurate indicator of the overall level of unemployment and, therefore, I have nothing to change and nothing to apologise for. It is the Deputies opposite who have continually sought to confuse this issue. They have continually shifted ground and continually reached for different figures.
Was it not the Minister's party that produced the different figures, printed them and published them but, at the time of the election, were saying there were 160,000 people out of jobs? The survey shows there were 100,000 and no more.