John V. Farrelly
Question:6 Mr. Farrelly asked the Minister for Labour the number of redundancies notified to date, in 1992 compared with the same period in 1990; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Notified Redundancies.
Joe Sherlock
Question:32 Mr. Sherlock asked the Minister for Labour the number of redundancies notified to his Department for the first nine months of this year, and the figures for the same periods in 1991 and 1990; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
I propose to take Questions Nos. 6 and 32 together.
The number of notifications of proposed redundancies notified to my Department under the Redundancy Payments Acts in the first nine months of 1992 was 12,876. The totals notified in the same periods in 1990 and 1991 were 10,620 and 12,471 respectively. At 405 the 1992 figure is, therefore, marginally higher than the corresponding figure for 1991. The figures for both 1991 and 1992 are somewhat higher than that for 1990, but the full year total in 1990 of 13,292 notified redundancies was the lowest annual total since 1979.
Can the Minister say if all redundancies are notified to his Department and if people become unemployed without his Department being made aware?
I should point out to the Deputy that employers are required under the Redundancy Payments Acts to notify the Department of the number of proposed redundancies; this may differ from the number of actual redundancies. In a number of recent publicised cases the number of proposed redundancies did not correspond to the number of actual redundancies. It is true to say that not all redundancies are notified to my Department but if one looks at the trends and the statistics that are available within my Department one will see that the average figure between 1982 and 1991 was in the region of 22,500 per annum. We have come a long way since 1987 and this reflects the improved fundamentals of the economy resulting from Government policy. This is a far cry from the position which obtained in 1984 when the figure was in the region of 31,500. At that stage other people were on this side of the House.
Would the Minister accept that his complacency is misplaced given that there has been an increase of more than 2,000 in the number of redundancies in the year to date as compared with 1990? Would he also accept that the Taoiseach seriously misled the House this morning when he said we have not had a massive number of job losses in the economy given that the figures quoted by him today show that 102,000 have lost their jobs since his party came into Government? Would he further accept that it was an error for the Government to do away with an Fóir Teoranta, a body established in an attempt to stop the haemorrhage of redundancies?
The Deputy is bringing in new matter.
As I said, the new spokesperson on employment is admirably selective in relation to statistics. I pointed out to him that the figure for 1990 was the lowest since 1979. I have given specific statistics which show that this year to date there has been an increase of 415 in the number of notified redundancies compared with last year. I also pointed out to the Deputy that when he was on this side of the House the figures were far greater. Therefore there is no question of complacency on my part. I would much prefer if there were no redundancies but when we compare our performance with that of previous Governments we all will see that in 1984 there were 31,500 redundancies whereas this year to date, in difficult international trading conditions, the number is only 415 higher compared with the figure for last year. The facts are that 45,000 net extra jobs have been created in the economy since we came into office. The Deputy should compare this with the performance of his party in Government between 1982-87 when there was a net loss of 70,000 jobs.
May I ask the Minister, in light of the enormous number of redundancies, if he intends to produce any proposals to provide training for those who are made redundant in an effort to enhance their employment prospects given that it has been proved that many of those who are made redundant are given few opportunities to return to the labour market due to their lack of trade skills?
Again, I take issue with the Deputy on the use of the adjective "enormous" because it is not true to say that each person who is made redundant will automatically reach the stage where they will be described as long term unemployed.
I did not say that.
Statistics show that three out of four return to the labour market within six months. We have to look at ways in which we can intervene to provide those out of work for more than six months with training to ensure they will become employable before they reach the stage where they will be described as long term unemployed, that is, 12 months or more. It is not true to say that each person who is made redundant will automatically reach the stage where they will be described as long term unemployed because, as I said, three out of four return to the labour market within six months. We must look at ways in which we can intervene to provide them with training to prevent them being included on the long term unemployment list.
There are nearly 300,000 people unemployed and each of these will tell the Minister that his policies have failed. Would the Minister accept therefore that they have failed and that he should change them to deal with the problem rather than throw out statistics this afternoon?
It is important that we deal with the facts and not with assertions which can be made by anyone on any side of the House. Our policies have not failed. The policies that failed were the policies pursued by Deputy Ryan's party when they were in Government between 1982-87 when there was a net loss of 70,000 jobs. We have reversed this trend with the result that 45,000 net extra jobs have been created since 1987. However the size of the labour market is increasing and will continue to increase at the rate of 2.5 per cent per annum between now and the end of the decade. This problem must be addressed. It is a daunting task but we must find an answer. However, I am not prepared to listen to assertions from the other side of the House given that there were fewer people working when they left office. That is one charge that cannot be levelled against this Government.
When will the Minister get tired of referring back to a previous Government regime? Will we hear him referring back to the Commonwealth days soon?
The Deputy's party hark back to the Commonwealth days.
Would the Minister not accept that the figures for the past two years show a 20 per cent increase in the level of redundancies and a 55 per cent increase in youth unemployment?
The Deputy is being selective.
I am not being selective. That is what has happened in the past two years, yet the Minister comes in here and says his policies are working. I would ask the Minister to seriously reconsider his attitude to this matter. With increasing job losses and our young people out of work, the Minister must change his attitude and come up with something better than talk about the years 1982-87.
I will come up with every possible initiative, as will this Government, to deal with the problem of unemployment, but I will not allow people on the other side of the House to suggest that the problems began in 1987. I will refer to the performance of the Deputy's party and ask the people to judge the credible alternative to the policies being pursued by this Government. The Deputy is so fond of statistics. The fact is that we are performing much better than did his party in the mid-eighties when there was a period of stagnation. I was in the House at that time and I heard the Deputy defend those policies. If the Deputy attacks this Government I will, at every opportunity, point out the failures of the past when we were on the other side of the House. That is in no way to detract from the daunting challenges which this Government intend facing to the best of our ability.
If the Minister continues——
I cannot permit a debate on this matter now.
I wish to make one brief comment.
It will have to wait until tomorrow.
The Deputy should look elsewhere for a whipping boy.
If the Minister is going to look through the back window all the time he will quickly drive us into the ditch.
I am calling Question No. 7.
He is obviously not concerned that 300,000 people are unemployed.
That is ridiculous.