Bernard J. Durkan
Question:4 Mr. Durkan asked the Taoiseach the total number of (a) females and (b) males in the labour force; and the number at (a) and (b) now registered as unemployed.
Ceisteanna—Questions. - Labour Force Survey.
The preliminary results of the 1991 sample labour force survey which was carried out in April-May this year showed that there were 1,331,000 persons in the labour force. Of these, 898,000 were males and 433,000 were females. The estimates are based on the respondents' own assessment of their usual situation with regard to employment.
It is not possible to determine the exact subset of the 1991 labour force now registered as unemployed. However, expressing the live register for 25 October 1991 as a percentage of the mid-April 1991 labour force yields the following results: males, 19.1 per cent.; females, 19.7 per cent.; total 19.3 per cent.
Does the Minister of State agree that the figures he has just furnished to the House are totally unsustainable in terms of the economic future of the country, from the point of view of the general economy, the country's well being and the large numbers of people now unemployed? If he does so agree will he indicate what plans the Government have to address and redress the problem?
The question before me is essentially statistical. Matters of policies or economics do not arise now. The Deputy should pursue his supplementary by way of a further question.
The reply indicated otherwise.
I want to put a statistical question to the Minister. In trying to account for the phenomenal decrease in the numbers of women in the labour force, can he give the House an indication of how many people would have been transferred from the live register to pre-retirement schemes or other credit schemes? Can he give the House any indication why there should be this drastic differentiation between an actual improved retention in the workforce of men and a drastically reduced retention of women?
The Deputy is obviously injecting new matter worthy of a separate question.
(Limerick East): What divergence is shown between the labour force survey results in respect of the information sought and the live register base to which the Minister referred in his reply?
I might point out that the definitive source of data on unemployment and employment is the labour force survey but there is a divergence between it and the live register. That may have arisen as a result of a number of factors but the figure at April this year was somewhere in the region of 47,000.
Is it possible for the Minister to answer my question which was manifestly statistical? How many people is it suggested were transferred from the live register to pre-retirement schemes?
I am afraid the Deputy will have to table a separate question.
With respect, that is a question that could be tabled to the Minister for Social Welfare.
It is pertinent to the labour force.
We must move to questions nominated for priority.
Alan Shatter
Question:5 Mr. Shatter asked the Minister for Labour the steps, if any, he proposes taking to reverse the decline in employment detailed in the labour force survey recently published which shows those in employment were 5,000 fewer in April 1991 than those in employment in April 1990; whether he expects the decline in employment to continue during the course of the period April 1991 to April 1992; and his views on the results of the recent survey.
Bernard J. Durkan
Question:26 Mr. Durkan asked the Minister for Labour if, in view of the total number of (a) females and (b) males in the labour force and the number at (a) and (b) above now registered as unemployed, he will make a statement on the matter.
Brendan Howlin
Question:38 Mr. Howlin asked the Minister for Labour if he will prepare a special report on future employment/unemployment trends in Ireland and the resources/policy response required to reduce unemployment to 100,000 by the year 1995; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 5, 26 and 38 together.
As part of their determination to stimulate economic growth through consensus the Government negotiated the Programme for National Recovery with the trade unions, employers and farmers in autumn 1987.
Since then the number of persons at work increased by over 40,000. This compares with a decline of 43,000 over the four years between 1983 and 1986.
In addition to increasing the numbers at work the programme restored Ireland's economic base and competitive position to the point where GNP growth has averaged almost 4 per cent a year since 1987; we have one of the lowest inflation rates in Europe and rates of personal taxation have been reduced.
From this greatly improved competitive base we are now far better positioned to take advantage of the anticipated upswing in world trade than we were ten years ago.
The key objective of the current Programme for Economic and Social Progress is to create 60,000 new jobs in manufacturing and international services and a further 15,000 in tourism over the next three years.
While the latest — April 1991 — labour force survey indicates a decline in total employment, there are a number of positive features. Employment in the services sector increased by 9,000 while employment in industry held up remarkably well. The main contributory factor in the overall decrease in employment occurred in the agriculture sector due to increased mechanisation and the adoption of modern husbandry methods.
Reliable employment statistics only become available in November of each year when the labour force survey results are published.
I understand that the question of providing more frequent indicators of employment trends is under active consideration by the task force on employment. One possibility is a sub-annual labour force survey. Other options are also being considered.
The latest ESRI medium term review — June 1991 — based on the continuation of current policies, predicts an annual average growth rate of 3.7 per cent in GNP up to 1996 with employment growing by 75,000 in non-agricultural sectors.
For this reason, it is important that we do not allow ourselves to be panicked into rash action or short-term palliatives which could jeopardise the growth forecast by the ESRI. We would do well to remember that much larger and more powerful economies than Ireland, such as France, have attempted to follow this path and have been forced to abandon it.
The increase in unemployment is not unique to Ireland but is part of a global trend — other more developed countries, such as Finland and Australia, have experienced similar increases while unemployment in the United Kingdom increased by almost 800,000 between August 1990 and August 1991.
The small decline in total employment recorded in the 1991 labour force survey is not an indication of failure of Government policy. Rather it can be attributed to a combination of factors outside the Government's control such as the recessions in the US and UK which were further adversely affected by the Gulf criss. In addition to the pressure caused by the natural increase in the labour force — estimated at 25,000 a year — we have seen a significant increase in the numbers of emigrants returning from abroad.
The common thread which has been evident in recent independent commentaries dealing with the current economic situation is that, but for the effectiveness of present policies, conditions could have been much worse and, in many respects, are a lot better here than those in many of our larger trading partners. In their spring commentary the ESRI stated:
It is very difficult to discover measures which could ameliorate the unemployment problem in the short term without exacerbating it in the longer term... To increase the budget deficit further in an attempt to combat unemployment arising from the international economic trends would be foolhardy and could jeopardise the economic strategy on which sustained employment growth depends.
There is no quick-fix solution to the unemployment situation and it would be unhelpful to suggest otherwise. Tackling unemployment remains the main objective of this Government. The most effective role which the Government can play is the continued creation of the best conditions for attracting and encouraging investment to enable employment to grow. Self-sustaining, viable jobs is the only real answer to the problem of unemployment.
This approach is being supported by the special task force on employment and the industrial policy review group. Both bodies will bring forward proposals before the end of the year for easing the unemployment situation.
That is only part of the solution. We also have to rely on a recovery in world trade since, as a small open economy, we are very exposed to changes of international trade which, in turn, impact on employment. There are signs that world trade is beginning to improve and this should provide the stimulus needed in our efforts to expand employment.
As regards my immediate area of responsibility I should mention that on any one day there are about 30,000 people participating in FÁS training and employment schemes and a further 3,000 in hotel and catering courses operated by CERT. I would expect, in broad terms, to maintain the present level of activity and expenditure in the medium-term.
Finally, I would refer to the improved industrial relations climate contribution which has a very positive influence on the maintenance and creation of jobs.
Would the Minister acknowledge that it was projected in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress that there would be 228,000 unemployed on average each year? Would he accept that there are now 260,000 unemployed, and if we add the 30,000 to whom he refers in training schemes there are 290,000 unemployed? Would the Minister accept that this is an abject failure of Government policy? Would he accept that there was a net reduction in the numbers in employment last year in the order of 8,000 — 5,000 referred to in the labour force survey and 3,000 who were temporarily employed at the time of the survey in conducting the census? Does the Minister expect that the labour force survey for the year ending April 1992 will show a net decrease or increase in employment?
I do not accept any of the premises suggested. Compared with an average of 34,000 net migration for the years 1986-90, the figure for net migration up to April 1991 was only 1,000. The Deputy will acknowledge that this is a major factor in the figures. Looking at the pattern of redundancies, they peaked during a period with which the Deputy and his colleagues will be very familiar, namely—
What is to happen this year? This is all waffle. We have over 30,000 more unemployed.
If a Deputy asks for information, he gets it.
Questions have been asked. Let us listen to the replies.
If the Fine Gael Party ask questions, will they allow them to be answered?
The Minister is not answering the questions. He is evading them. He has waffled for seven minutes.
Deputy Shatter should listen to the replies.
Do they determine not just what they say but what we say as well? Redundancies peaked at 31,000 in 1984 and the figure in the final years of the decade was about 13,000. In terms of overall employment, there is a very healthy condition but there are factors such as the net increase in migration, which has been aggravated in our case.
There has been a net reduction in the past 12 months in actual employment.
The Deputy will also be reasonably familiar with the position in the Middle East and it is unreasonable to ignore its impact on the world economy. The Deputy is free to do so, but I have stated the facts.
Can we have brevity, having regard to the fact that we are dealing with Priority Questions and the rigid time limit involved? Can I proceed to another question?
A final supplementary. I have been very brief but the Minister has been very long-winded. We have not heard anything of substance in reply. Would the Minister not agree that the so-called primary policy objective of the Government to tackle the problems of unemployment, as stated in the Fianna Fáil-PD document covering the years 1989-93 and as stated in the Programme for Economic and Social Progress, is an abject failure? Could he indicate one initiative he proposes to take this month to tackle unemployment? Would he not agree that the crisis is now so great that the time has come for the Government to accept the Fine Gael proposal, which is widely accepted outside this House, to establish a national forum on jobs so that the best brains in the country can get together to tackle the problem? Clearly the Government are incapable of tackling it.
The Deputy must not be aware of what has been happening during the past four years. There is, of course, an unprecedented national partnership on jobs, something his party in Government never even contemplated. There is a partnership programme between employers, workers, farmers and all the interests involved. I do not remember hearing any such suggestion from Fine Gael and Labour when they were in Government. When we have such a programme in place, they try to imply they have a better idea.
There are more people unemployed now than at any time in the history of the State.
On a point of order, this must be some kind of record in that 13 minutes have been spent on the first Priority Question.
This is the wrong time to raise spurious points of order. I hope to deal with the Deputy's own question if I am permitted to do so.
Impossible.
I quite agree that it seems like that.
Are we to have homework like this every week?