Thomas P. Broughan
Question:1 Mr. Broughan asked the Taoiseach the latest figures for the long-term unemployed. [5745/01]
Ceisteanna–Questions. - Unemployment Figures.
Trevor Sargent
Question:2 Mr. Sargent asked the Taoiseach the latest figures for the long-term unemployed. [6700/01]
Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin
Question:3 Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin asked the Taoiseach the figures for long-term unemployment. [10557/01]
Joe Higgins
Question:4 Mr. Higgins (Dublin West) asked the Taoiseach if he will make a statement on the latest figures for the long-term unemployed. [14025/01]
I propose to take Questions Nos. 1 to 4, inclusive, together.
The latest results from the quarterly national household survey showed that there were 65,600 persons unemployed in the first quarter of 2001, an annual decrease of almost 16,000.
The number of persons long-term unemployed fell by 8,200 to 21,500. There were 43,500 persons unemployed for less than a year, which is also a fall of 8,200 on the 2000 figure.
The figures the Minister of State read out are overshadowed by the fact that Ireland has one of the highest child poverty rates in Europe.
The Deputy should ask a question.
I want to put it into perspective, a Cheann Comhairle, because the figures do not tell the full story. Does the Minister of State factor into his figures that, according to the INOU, there are 144,000 people out there who want work but who cannot take up work for all sorts of reasons such as the cost of accommodation, the risk of losing benefits like rent support, child care costs or, that they must care for sick or elderly relations? Are these people factored into his unemployment figures? Would he agree that the figures need to be taken together with reports of high pockets of unemployment, considering that unemployment rates are higher in particular areas, both urban and rural, where people feel that the Celtic tiger is nothing more than a cartoon figure at this stage?
The figures I gave the House are those from the Central Statistics Office. The figure for unemployed persons is 65,600, that is, an unemployment rate of 3.7% compared to an EU average of 8%.
I take the Deputy's point. There are pockets where the unemployment rate is considerably higher. Obviously the 3.7% rate is an average rate and we all know of pockets in constituencies around the country where the figures would be significantly higher.
On that point, given that recently the live register stood at 141,600, would the Minister agree that there is a significant number of categories of people, particularly many tens of thousands of people with disabilities, who are still unemployed and who face a fairly limited future because they cannot access job opportunities? There are other groups, including people recovering from addiction, ex-offenders and members of the Traveller community, in particular. This morning we had a discussion about another group, people who recently entered the country. Would he agree, therefore, that the quarterly national household survey figures he gave grossly under estimate the true level of unemployment and that it is an area of grave concern?
Most Deputies, courtesy of the Internet, have received a copy of the famous letter which his colleague, the Tánaiste and Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Employment, Deputy Harney, sent to FÁS. Will the Minister of State comment on that letter, which outlines a new mission statement for that organisation but does not, as far as I can see, take into account any of the factors raised by me or Deputy Sargent, particularly regarding issues like immigration?
There is another question about the number on the live register compared to the number in the quarterly national household survey. Perhaps we might deal with that in more detail when we come to that question because we should not confuse the two groups. Quite a number of those on the live register do not describe themselves as unemployed. They are available for benefits and collect benefits of different sorts, whereas the quarterly national household survey involves the persons describing themselves as unemployed.
I could not accept that the figures are grossly under estimated. The 65,600 figure is the one reported in the quarterly national household survey, which gives a national rate of 3.7%. The long-term unemployed rate is now 1.2%, but I have already acknowledged that there are pockets all over the country where there are significantly higher figures than these, including in the categories mentioned by the Deputy.
To return to the calculation of the figures the Minister of State quoted, I note there is a dispute about the discrepancy between the live register and the quarterly national household survey. Focusing on the quarterly national household survey, I presume those figures include people who would not necessarily claim unemployment benefits such as lone parent's benefit. Would the Minister of State agree that many of the people in the particular sub-set to which I refer are actually debarred from working in that they would be worse off financially if they were to take up work or if they were to go into education? Does he agree that a lone parent who left school at 16—
The Deputy is asking about policy which is not the responsibility of the Minister of State.
Does he agree that these barriers should not be put in place—
I must rule the Deputy's question out of order.
—if we are talking about trying to resolve the differences in the figures of the CSO and of the live register?
The Deputy is impinging on policy. I call Deputy Quinn.
Has the Minister of State, who has responsibility for the CSO, had discussions with that office to see if we can get behind the qualitative nature of the statistics for the long-term unemployed? I understood from the Minister of State's reply that there are 65,600 persons in the long-term unemployed category, that is, those who have been unemployed for one year or more. Is that correct?
No, the number of persons unemployed is 65,600.
So, the figure for those unemployed for one year or more is 21,000?
That is correct.
Does the Department or the CSO propose – I am staying within the confines of Standing Orders for statistical matters rather than policy matters – to measure qualitative reasons as to why, at a time of relatively full unemployment, 21,000 people are categorised long-term unemployed? We could, for example, measure their literacy, educational and personal domestic circumstances. They may, in effect, be carers who do not qualify for the carer's allowance. Are there proposals to get behind the nature of these figures so that policy can be better informed?
I agree with Deputy Quinn that we need to ask questions of the 21,000 long- term unemployed people. I understand such a task is envisaged. We are trying to settle down the quarterly national household survey which is only a couple of years old. There has been a dramatic shift in figures. We intend to move on and as the numbers come into focus we will try to find out, from the persons describing themselves as such, why these people are unavailable for work. That is not done on any major scale at present.
From my experience in the current by-election campaign in Tipperary South – this is true of the entire country – there are certain housing estates where the local authority would, in the main, be the landlord and the official data regarding rents and so on indicates concentrations of very high levels of unemployment. The figure is 40% or even 50% in some small estates. Is there a proposal, in the plans referred to by the Minister of State, for the CSO to liaise with the health boards, the Department of Social, Community and Family Affairs or local authorities, in their housing authority capacity, to focus the spotlight on pockets of unemployment? The culture of employment in some households may well have disappeared for two or three generations.
I share the Deputy's objective. The quarterly national household survey is a national survey of—
It is a sample study.
Yes, it is a sample of 39,000 persons on a quarterly rolling basis. As such, the CSO would not have statistics for particular estates. That would have to be done in another way. I will discuss the matter with the CSO. A number of Government programmes are available for areas of high unemployment.
None of them measure unemployment blackspots which has more to do with the capabilities of the individuals rather than the capacity of the local economy to employ them. Until we get statistics on this, we cannot devise appropriate policy.
We will have to consider how to deal with that issue. The CSO does not have statistics on particular estates. I do not know if it would be sensible to expect it to get down to that level of detail. I will discuss the matter with the CSO.
Does the Minister of State consider that the quarterly national household survey is a crude measure of what is essentially a complex issue for many people qualified by all sorts of factors which do not come into play when one is simply dealing with bare statistics? There is a huge contrast between the labour force statistics regarding those in and out of work. The information I have for May 2001 indicates a growth of 43,400 between the first quarter of 2000 and the first quarter of 2001 and this was attributed to greater numbers of people of working age rather than to a higher rate of participation. Is there a need to be clear and careful regarding how figures are published without any meaningful qualification?
When I raised a question regarding the latest figures for the long-term unemployed, the Minister of State gave me previous figures to show a trend. Is he now able to indicate a trend from here on out in terms of what the CSO is predicting? If it can predict what happened looking at past figures, is it able to say where we are going? Are we bottoming out? Are long-term unemployed people to be left in that position? Will FÁS policy to do away with community employment schemes not exacerbate the participative nature—
The Minister is responsible only for compiling statistics
The Minister of State gave me the figures. I am merely trying to find out where the trend is heading.
He is not responsible for the use to which those figures are subsequently put.
I appreciate that, a Cheann Comhairle. I am trying to be in order but I wish to ask the Minister of State about the trend he mentioned.
The Deputy should bear in mind that the Minister of State is responsible only for compiling the statistics.
The quarterly national household survey is a valid measure, albeit a survey, which is reconcilable with the live register. The figures for those on the live register who do not describe themselves in the survey as being unemployed have tallied in the past couple of years.
It is a valid survey because it is ascertainable and verifiable. It is an internationally recognisable survey and is the one used for comparing international trends.
As to whether the CSO can predict unemployment rates – I do not wish to be clever – the CSO is not in the prediction business. Whether it should get into that is another day's discussion. Such things are forecast by other agencies and bodies. The CSO is required to statutorily produce independent statistics for the management of the economy and society.
It should explain them.
Yes.
I wish to refer to my previous question. I accept your ruling, a Cheann Comhairle and I will try to stay within the Standing Order.
Are there proposals to examine the sub-sets within the categories of those termed unemployed and long-term unemployed? Using the example of one of those categories, lone parents, some of these sub-sets have a higher level of unemployment than other sections of the population in general. Will the CSO examine the specific causes in each of those categories? Does the Minister of State agree that in some cases there can be barriers to allowing such people back into the workforce? That information, if compiled, could be extremely useful in developing policy in this area.
I agree with the Deputy. That is something we are developing on an ongoing basis. The figures of 65,600 unemployed and 21,000 long-term unemployed are two broad categories. I take the point that one could look within them. I will discuss the issue with the CSO. People are asked if they are available for work. Obviously, people on particular allowances would not be available for work. We must take that information into account.