asked the Minister for Finance the targets set by the Government for the reduction of unemployment in 1979 and 1980; the actual reduction achieved in each year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
24.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - National Development Targets.
23.
asked the Minister for Finance in the light of the target set in the White Paper entitled Programme for National Development of a level of unemployment of 23,000 at the end of 1981, the Government's current projection of registered unemployment at that date; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
25.
asked the Minister for Finance in the light of the target set in the White Paper entitled Programme for National Development of a rate of inflation of less than 5 per cent at the end of 1981, the Government's current projection of the rate of price rises at the end of this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
26.
asked the Minister for Finance in the light of the target set in the White Paper entitled Programme for National Development of an annual GNP growth rate of 5 per cent in 1981, the Government's current projection of GNP growth this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
27.
asked the Minister for Finance in the light of the target set in the White Paper entitled Programme for National Development of an Exchequer borrowing requirement of less than 8 per cent in 1981, the Government's current projection of the borrowing requirement for this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 23 to 27 inclusive, together.
The White Paper Programme for National Development 1978-1981 and the targets contained in it were published in January 1979 before the onset of the substantial oil price increases in 1979 and the ensuing world-wide economic recession. As a consequence, the assumptions concerning the economic environment in the period covered by the White Paper targets were considerably more optimistic than actual events showed. This was acknowledged in the further White Paper Investment and National Development 1979-1983, published in January 1980.
This White Paper also pointed out that the further deterioration in the international environment, then evident, would have an adverse effect on the Irish economy's prospects. This was borne out by subsequent events. The prospective situation in 1981 is, however, more favourable for growth and inflation.
I thought I had asked a specific question to which a specific answer should be given. The Minister has used flowery language in the most indefinite kind of way and in what he has said has evaded the issues. What is the present position in relation to the targets set, a very simple question?
Not if one is Minister for Finance.
For the Deputy's information, the 1979 White Paper did not specify any targets for registered unemployment at the end of 1981. Of course this was because of the uncertainty surrounding the level of labour force increase likely to take place over the period which is very relevant and has been proved by subsequent figures. There is not a 1-for-1 relationship between increases in the level of employment and reductions in the numbers registered as unemployed.
Can the Minister tell the House whether or not there is an improvement in the position, whether or not the targets were reached, or is the Minister saying no targets were set because they could not be set?
The Minister is saying that the targets for registered unemployment were not met mainly because of the uncertainty surrounding the level of the labour force. Regarding the other part of the question asked by the Deputy, I think it is true to say that the position — and we cannot bury our heads in the sand in this respect — between 1979 and 1981 deteriorated substantially internationally. Oil prices increased at an unprecedented rate which surely was bound to have some effect on an economy as open as ours.
It was not an unprecedented rate.
Yes it was.
Deputy Cluskey.
Not for 1974-75.
There was absolutely no comparison. Let me get the record straight, I am sorry, but in money terms the price of imported oil doubled from 1978 to 1980 and the 1980 figure was approximately £755 million.
It is not the same.
Deputy Cluskey.
The Minister has answered five questions together. In relation to Question No. 24 might I ask him if he is attributing totally to the oil increases the miscalculation of the number of unemployed, which was predicted to be 23,000 in the current year, whereas that figure now stands at 127,000?
I have pointed out the economic difficulties in the intervening period. I want to point out also that the increase in our labour force in the three years ended February 1980 was 80,000, something we were not aware of——
The Government were not aware of that?
The Deputy may remember that a census was not taken in a particular year of a certain administration for expediency reasons. The Deputy was a junior Cabinet member of the administration that took that decision, so memories can be somewhat short.
Is the Minister saying that they made no estimation at all of any increase whatever in the labour force when making those predictions of 23,000 unemployed now, rather than the 127,000 now actually obtaining?
I said there were a number of factors.
Never mind the number, I am asking specifically did the Government make no provision at all for any increase whatsoever in the labour force when they were writing this fairytale?
Yes.
What number?
I would not have that number for the Deputy off the top of my head. Suffice it for me to say — and the Deputy must be aware of this — that the figures were much higher than were anticipated prior to that date. For instance, let me give the Deputy another figure which may be of interest to him——
Would the Minister give me the one for which I asked?
Just a moment, am I not entitled to answer——
A Cheann Comhairle——
——or does Deputy Cluskey not want the truth?
Before the Minister displays his over-generosity in giving figures for which I have not asked, would he give me the figure for which I have asked?
I am sorry, Deputy, the Minister has the right to reply and, as I have said here on many occasions, I am not responsible for Ministers' replies.
Would the Minister ever think of exercising that right because he has not so far?
On a point of order, is the Minister in order in making a speech on a different subject as distinct from replying to the question asked?
I have no responsibility whatsoever for the Minister's replies.
But he is not entitled to make speeches, is that not so?
I have one supplementary question at least on each of my questions and I am still on the first one.
Deputy FitzGerald, as usual, is miles out on any assumption he makes. I was not making any comment on an unrelated subject. As a matter of fact, I was trying to answer Deputy Cluskey's question. The Deputy asked me if we had taken into consideration figures of——
Of any increase at all?
—— a labour force increase.
What was it?
Obviously we had to go on statistics available to us. One very relevant statistic available to us was that in the four-year period from 1973 to 1977 the increase in the labour force was 14,000. Therefore it is understandable that we would not have picked up the 80,000 increase in the three-year period from 1977 to 1980.
Did the Government make any estimation whatsoever?
That should answer the Deputy's question.
But it does not. In regard to Question No. 25, the Government, in the White Paper entitled Programme for National Development 1978-81, stated that an inflation rate of less than 5 per cent would obtain in the current year so to what do they attribute the present rate of approximately 21 per cent? Solely to the oil increases?
I think I should draw the Deputy's attention to my reply——
I think the Minister should answer the question.
The White Paper about which the Deputy is talking also pointed out that the future deterioration in the national environment then evident would have an adverse effect on the prospects for our economy. Is the Deputy suggesting that we, as an economic entity, or island, could——
The Minister should answer the question.
Would the Deputy please permit the Minister to reply?
On a point of order, might I ask the Minister, for my own benefit — because I am somewhat confused — how he defines "national environment"? I know somebody wrote it down there but how does he define it?
I appreciate the Deputy's difficulties in understanding things like that but——
I do not know; I am asking the Minister what is it?
Is the Deputy saying to me that we live as an entity without being affected by international factors? I explained to the Deputy——
We cannot have a debate on this.
I have asked the Minister to exclude the increased oil prices, or is he attributing the whole lot to the increased oil prices? Is he attributing the present rate of inflation — 16 per cent in excess of their predictions — totally to the increased oil prices?
The Deputy must be aware that all EEC and OECD countries outside of the oil producing countries saw increased inflation in that intervening period. It is unreal for any Deputy to suggest that it could have been possible to avoid that situation in a country like ours.
The Minister suggested it.
I am explaining the differences.
Is the Minister saying that although his Government published a document saying that inflation in the current year would be less than 5 per cent and it is now running at 16 per cent in excess of that, it is all due to the oil increases? If the Minister is not saying that what are the other contributing factors?
The Deputy is repeating his question over and over again.
Will the Minister not agree that at least 8 per cent of inflation is the direct responsibility of the budgets introduced over the last two years?
I do not agree with that.
Then the Minister cannot add.
The impact on the world economies had a major effect on our inflation rate. Some difficulties did occur at home and we contributed to the increase in the CPI but the reason we did was to help the social welfare beneficiaries. That was a major factor in the increases.
They would be far happier if they were paid what they were paid before the budget.
There are five questions here——
We have spent about 10 minutes on the five questions.
I would like to ask one supplementary in relation to Question No. 26.
I want to ask a question.
I will allow Deputy Cluskey one question but he must make it one question. His last supplementary amounted to more than one question.
To what does the Minister attribute the fact that in the White Paper the Government claimed that a growth rate of five per cent would be attained in the present year when it is clearly accepted by all economic agencies that the growth rate will be nil in the current year?
I am sorry to disappoint the Deputy.
Will the Minister explain the discrepancy between what was claimed to be the projected growth rate in the current year and the actual growth rate? I assume that even the Minister is not mad enough to claim that it will be five per cent.
Of course the growth rate declined just as it did——
What does the Minister anticipate that it will be?
Please, Deputy, this is a whole series of supplementaries.
This is silly lecturing from Deputy Cluskey.
I do not want lectures from any side of the House.
I would not attempt to lecture the Minister as I know less than most people about this and the Minister knows less than me.
(Interruptions.)
Will the Deputy please resume his seat until the Minister replies?
Of course the growth rate dropped. It was not achieved here nor was it achieved in any other EEC or OECD country. The Deputy said that this year there would be a nil growth rate and I dispute that. There will be a positive growth rate——
What will it be?
At this stage I cannot be certain but it will be positive.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Kelly, please.
Could I tell the Minister, just before I finish——
Please do not tell him anything, Deputy.
I would request the Taoiseach to sit in the bull pen the next time the Minister is answering questions.
Just give me a chance to tease out one point——
A final supplementary question.
The Minister introduced the topic of oil prices. Does the Minister know what proportion of our total import bill, roughly speaking, is now represented in percentage terms by oil and oil products?
I do not have that with me but I will let the Deputy have it if he puts down a question——
The Minister does not need to because I know it.
I will give the Deputy the estimated figure.
I know the figure. Will the Minister accept——
The estimated figure is £900 million this year.
Will the Minister accept that at the moment that represents about 13 per cent of our total current imports——
Question No. 28. Will Deputy Kelly please resume his seat.
——and that is the same figure that it was in 1974 and 1975?
The Minister to reply to Question No. 28.
It is bad enough being shouted down by the Minister without being shouted down by the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
I wish to ask a supplementary question.
I am sorry, Deputy, I gave Deputy Kelly an opportunity to ask the final supplementary.
I could not hear the answer.
I have been waiting patiently for my turn. What am I to do — stand up and wave my arms?
The Deputy is aware that the Ceann Comhairle is responsible for the number of supplementaries asked. I will give the Deputy one supplementary.
How does the Minister account for the fact that our inflation rate is two to three times that of neighbouring countries who have the same oil importation problems as us because they do not have their own reserves of oil?
There are other contributing factors but the oil increase had a major impact on our inflation rate.
(Interruptions.)
Why is ours two and three times that of other countries? Will the Minister please answer the question? Is there any question the Minister can answer?
Question No. 28.