Richard Bruton
Question:7 Mr. R. Bruton asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the indication from recent trends in unemployment regarding the success of Government employment policies.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers. - Employment Policies.
Jim O'Keeffe
Question:38 Mr. J. O'Keeffe asked the Minister for Enterprise and Employment the reason Ireland's levels of unemployment are so high.
I propose to take Priority Question No. 7 and Oral Question No. 38 together.
The total number of persons on the live register averaged some 294,000 in 1993. This was 15,000 lower than the figure forecast in the 1993 budget. The total number on the live register on 28 January 1994 was 297,000, a reduction of 100 over the corresponding December figure. The seasonally adjusted figure for January shows a reduction of 6,200 over the December figure. As such, these figures represent some of the best news on this front in over three years.
While we will all welcome these encouraging figures, they do not afford any basis for complacency or for jumping to premature conclusions. One swallow does not make a summer.
Unemployment of the present magnitude is and remains wholly unacceptable socially, economically and, indeed, politically.
The Department of Enterprise and Employment is beginning to use very flowery language.
The reasons for it are multiple and complex. They include cyclical factors such as developments in our external markets as well as the deeper, or structural, reasons such as the shake-out in agriculture which still continues and various factors which have weakened job performance on the industrial front, particularly those which were highlighted in the Culliton and Moriarty reports.
The main policy inferences which can be drawn, in my view, from the unemployment figures for the past 13 months and from other economic data such as the preliminary results of the 1993 Labour Force Survey are, first, that the broad thrust of current employment policies and programmes appears to be correct, and, second that the challenges facing us as a society to promote growth, competitiveness and employment while protecting the interests of the unemployed and the disadvantaged are very formidable.
The Government, in its policies and actions since coming into office, has given a lead. The National Development Plan represents the broad strategy. Government decisions on the Culliton-Moriarty reports are central to its policy on industrial development and the promotion of enterprise. The economic fundamentals are right, helped by a very good budget. Now is the time for all sections of our society, including the investment community, to participate fully in the common effort to utilise all our resources and to maximise employment.
Will the Minister not agree that the stability of unemployment during 1993 was achieved primarily through increased emigration? Will he not agree that the latest figures show that total employment in 1993 grew by only 7,000 at a time when we know the natural increase in our labour force was 25,000, a difference of 18,000? Those figures indicate that a substantial number of people emigrated. Will the Minister not agree that emigration is a factor and that the figures he takes succour from may give him mistaken encouragement? While we have regular figures on employment in key sectors, will he not agree that many industries in our key sectors are in decline? For example, employment in the building industry in 1993 decreased by 6,000 compared to 1992. The manufacturing industry is in decline and has enjoyed no growth. This is at a time when our manufacturing industry and the economy as a whole is enjoying the highest rate of economic growth in Europe.
The Deputy has raised a number of questions. I am not sure that we can identify one dominant cause for the relatively poor performance of those sectors. While recent figures give some cause for comfort, we cannot afford to be complacent. I do not agree with the Deputy that emigration is one of the major factors contributing to the amelioration of the problem. Economies in the two destinations to which Irish people have traditionally emigrated are in serious decline. Our evidence indicates that emigration is not the dominant factor which the Deputy suggests. A number of different factors influence the relative performance of the labour market. I reiterate that, while the figures give some cause for encouragement at this time, the overall figure is unacceptable and Government policies are designed to reduce unemployment further.
I stress the need for brevity at this stage.
Unemployment figures in the UK are falling rapidly for the first time in a long period and it is known that Irish unemployment figures normally fall in sympathy with those of the UK. Will the Minister not agree that the increase of 7,000 in employment recorded last year is equivalent to the 7,000 extra people who participated in social employment schemes? Will he not also agree that those schemes, while admirable, in some respects, essentially are playing snakes and ladders with the unemployed in that the people on those schemes are out of a job after 12 months?
I do not agree. In many cases the people who participate in the unemployment programmes and schemes to which the Deputy referred would not secure employment in a vigorous labour market. Those schemes were established to enable the unemployed to enter back into the world of work. The straight correlation which the Deputy makes is a mistake.