Labour Force Survey: Motion.

Ms O'Sullivan

I move:

That Seanad Éireann, concerned at the growing discrepancy between the results of the internationally approved and standardised Labour Force Survey and the figures for the live register of those signing on for unemployment benefit from the Department of Social Welfare, requests the Government to devise a new system of regular surveys of employment which will give an accurate basis for policy formation in the future.

This debate is in the same context as previous debates on unemployment here, particularly in Private Members' time. We had a debate only two weeks ago in the name of the Independent Senators on jobs in the services sector. Seanad Éireann is contributing well to this general debate on unemployment, and long-term unemployment in particular, which is of primary interest and concern to all parties in these Houses.

We were concerned that the figures indicated in the Labour Force Survey are significantly different from those indicated by the Department of Social Welfare's live register. For example, the recent figures for the period up to April 1995 indicated there was an increase of 49,000 people at work in the year to April 1995. That significant increase is obviously welcomed by all of us. When that figure was calculated, it put unemployment at 192,000 while the live register figure for the same time stated a figure of 276,000. That is quite a significant discrepancy.

In any kind of Government planning we need to know the facts. We need to have an accurate picture of the basis on which policy decisions are being made. With long-term unemployment in particular, we need to be able to put faces on the people about whom we are talking. We have in some ways tended to despair of the black hole of long-term unemployment because we have looked at a sizeable figure which seemed to be uncrackable for so long. There seemed to be an indication that it was almost inevitable that we have a large number of long-term unemployed people in our society. That is not the present Government's attitude or, indeed, the attitude of previous Governments. It is much more difficult to make proper policy planning decisions when one does not have an accurate indication.

These figures have been released at an appropriate time because several factors dovetail together on this issue which can help to give accurate statistics on which to base Government action. For example, the local employment service has been set up recently following on report No. 4 of the National Economic and Social Forum. That is being put in place around the country as a result of a decision, which related to that report, around the time of the last budget. It will put mentors in place around the country whose job is to relate directly to a specific number of long-term unemployed in each area. In other words, it will give someone the job of relating to all of the people around the country who are long-term unemployed. This humanises the problem of long-term unemployment. There is much potential there for knowing exactly what action needs to be taken for each individual. That is part of the brief of the people who will be working under the scheme. They will have to find out whether a person needs more training or education, whether there is a specific job for which the person might apply and so on. It challenges the services which are already there to respond to the genuine needs of the long-term unemployed.

There are a number of other areas which are being worked on at present. I understand, and the Minister may confirm, that the Government is to undertake some pilot studies in urban and rural areas on what jobs are being created and who is getting them, again, in order to get an accurate picture of what is going on.

We are well aware that the Minister for Social Welfare is trying to identify the obstacles within the social welfare system which prevent people taking up employment. I refer to what is commonly known as the poverty trap, where people would almost be better off if they remained unemployed than if they took up employment.

There are also tax related areas, which are being dealt with by the Department of Finance. Significant measures have been taken in the last budget, and also in the previous budget, to make it easier for employers to take on extra people. The Cabinet recently spent time discussing the whole area of long-term unemployment.

There are a number of initiatives which are being brought together to address the problem of long-term unemployment, but unless we have sound facts and figures on which to base them it will be very difficult to determine what action needs to be taken. No matter what the issue, you need an accurate picture of it before you can deal with it.

We are all well aware, and it was again referred to in the debate on the services sector, that there is a large black economy. We are not exactly sure what it is, where it is or the way in which it operates. There is no doubt that it exists and it functions more strongly in certain sectors than in others.

It is important that research is undertaken on what jobs are being created and who is in a position to take up those jobs. I am a member of the midwest regional authority. We are trying to find out what the cost per job is of job creation in different sectors. In other words, is creating jobs in one sector as opposed to another useful, cost effective and a good way to spend public money? Is it very expensive to create one job in one area and a lot cheaper to give local authorities the power to employ people? Many public representatives in local authorities will probably say it would be quite cost effective to empower local authorities to employ more people and that they would certainly have work for them to do. The midwest regional authority is trying to create categories in order to have more accurate information as to how public money is being spent on job creation.

The Labour Force Survey, to which we refer in our motion, indicates that quite a significant proportion of the extra jobs are being created by the private sector. That is welcome. Creating jobs in the public sector obviously involves spending public money. One is also spending public money to some extent in creating jobs in the private sector but we hope it would be to a lesser extent. If you are to have any kind of a good active economy you need a good active private sector, which is not only creating wealth but also jobs. The figures from the Labour Force Survey indicate that that is indeed the case and that the private sector is, in fact, improving in that area. This is welcome because for a long time indigenous Irish industries were not performing particularly well in the area of job creation. For a long time we were relying on multinationals and companies from abroad to create jobs. We still need to rely on both, but it is encouraging that there is an indication that the Irish private sector is also relatively successful in creating jobs.

There is also the community sector and the kind of energy that has been generated in response to significant levels of direct EU funding for partnerships, Leader groups and others. It is important that this energy is channelled in a positive way towards job creation because the funds may not be as flúirseach after 1999 as they have been to date.

There is also a need to inject momentum into the structure of local and national government to enable work to continue. A significant number of jobs have been created at that level because of community determination. People are loyal to their local community and set up tourism projects or small industries which are creating jobs. The county enterprise boards also play an important role in that area. Jobs are now being created in areas which were not significant in the past. I single out the arts as an area which has provided a significant level of job creation.

We proposed this motion this evening because we believe it is important that these threads are gathered together in a purposeful way and that there is a factual basis upon which we can deal with job creation, particularly for people who have been out of employment for a long period. Until we have accurate statistics to which we can refer with certainty and structures which reach right down to the long-term unemployed we will not be able to build on the real picture. Local employment service is a crucial factor. We hope this debate will elucidate some of the areas uncovered by this discrepancy and help ascertain what action is necessary to ensure an accurate picture of the problem. We can then proceed to put policies and arrangements in place that will help to reduce this figure. There is never an acceptable level of unemployment but we should at least reduce it so as to provide meaningful opportunities for the long-term unemployed.

It is important to welcome the fact that overall EU employment fell over recent years while ours has been growing. We should not see doom and gloom in Irish unemployment trends. There was an increase of 49,000 between April 1994 and April 1995 and this seems to be part of a welcome ongoing trend. We need to deal with the problems thrown up by the discrepancies in these figures.

Ms Gallagher

I second the motion. It is not a party political motion but an issue which is of concern to all political parties. For the last number of years, unemployment has been the most serious problem affecting this country. In proposing the motion we thought it was important to point out that we should not address this problem in a willy-nilly or panicky fashion. We should study it in a scientific manner that will allow us to tackle it properly.

The Labour Force Survey figures when contrasted with those on the live register were a cause of alarm to many people because of the huge discrepancy. The Labour Force Survey is a scientific survey which accurately reflects the number of people in employment while the live register simply reflects the number claiming social welfare payments. Such a huge discrepancy means there is something radically wrong. We can hazard a guess as to what that is and we can assume that much of it is caused by the black economy and other factors. It is important that the Government takes this issue seriously and studies it with a view to ascertaining the exact nature of the discrepancy. It is only when we know the reason that we can address the problem.

Our past reaction to unemployment means we have empty IDA factories which were built with a view to obtaining jobs for various regions. We offered huge incentives in the form of grant aid to multinationals which at the time seemed a good idea and may have worked in some areas. Certain companies gave invaluable service in terms of job creation and job maintenance. Sadly much of that effort disappeared and the profit from those businesses was invested elsewhere. As soon as the grant aid ended the companies disappeared back to where they came from. It was not the most successful way to tackle unemployment and warranted further study. That is still the case because while one can build a factory anywhere and give various grants, the requirement to create employment is not there.

Our policy does not adequately encourage people to employ others. I wanted to take on a part-time secretary and I was amazed by the amount of work involved. I had to contact the tax office which required forms to be filled out on a weekly and monthly basis, there was also the question of insurance, etc. My requirement was simple but I pity an individual setting up a business who is suddenly inundated with forms and bureaucracy. It is assumed that they will make a massive profit in their first year of trading and the tax man is on their doorstep in no time. We cannot seriously give out taxpayers' money with one hand and push those people out of business with the other. We must decide on a sensible way to address business because we are not doing it properly.

As a member of a county enterprise board, I believe that grant aid should be linked directly to employment. We still invest taxpayers' money in the purchase of plant and machinery where there is no guarantee of employment. In many cases no employment is created, yet the money is handed out wholesale. Several county enterprise boards are returning money because there are not enough ideas for new businesses. There is no shortage of money for people setting up businesses but we are failing to produce jobs because we are not focused correctly. We are still too focused on capital, machinery and plant when we should be focused on employment.

We must address the creation of one stop shops to assist people. I am a Senator and a solicitor but when I rang the tax office, I had to ask each individual question about VAT and income tax. Why does one have to drag information out of them? Why is there not somebody who will immediately give one a step by step guide to employing someone? I do not know how Joe Soap manages because they are not the least bit helpful. It has been said that we are creating customer friendly services in the tax offices but I have no experience of them.

People are anxious to create employment but the risk, hassle and expense are serious disincentives. We also have the other extreme where people are providing employment without proper contracts or on a part-time basis. They are taking full advantage of the fact that women might only want to work part-time. In my county they are employing them as mushroom pickers and are not paying them adequately. They are giving the women no protection under the law. They are registering some as employees for tax purposes but most are not registered. The women are not given a choice in the matter and there appears to be no investigation of this practice. Nobody seems to care; a blind eye is turned in the name of employment. That is not proper employment.

I have more to say on the issue than I originally anticipated. There is a number of problems. Senator O'Sullivan has already mentioned the black economy and we must address that. We also must link the taxation and social welfare systems in a formal sense and we have the computers to do that. We need to create a greater incentive to work and to have a greater differentiation between social welfare payments and low wages. If we address the unemployment problem properly we will be able to afford to pay the genuinely unemployed the money they need to make ends meet.

Mr. Fahey

I support this motion on the accuracy of statistics on unemployment. The last set of unemployment figures released by the Government show that the seasonally adjusted unemployment total has risen by 4,000. At the same time our economy is supposed to be doing well — a great economy but poor when it comes to unemployment figures and it does not appear to be getting any better. The Central Bank has just increased its estimate of the jobless total for 1995 by 7,000. Independent stockbrokers are claiming that the Government will fall substantially short of its modest targets this year.

Something is fundamentally wrong; indeed, many things are wrong starting with the figures. The totals from the live register do not tally with the Labour Force Survey figures and neither set of figures tells us what we need to know. They are not released often enough to be useful. We need to know what types of jobs have been lost and how many in each sector. That information is necessary to target the problem rather than prolong it. The material being produced at present is too dated and sketchy to be of use. The Labour Force Survey should be conducted quarterly rather than annually. This would cost an additional £1.9 million per year but it would be money well spent.

In addition to more regular figures, we need to know who is looking for jobs, where they are, what jobs they can seek and what jobs they can do. We need to know what sectors are recruiting people or are shedding jobs. We need to know the employment trends here and abroad. The Government has made great play of its recent Cabinet summit on long-term unemployment. It was as if the Government suddenly discovered the problem; it was as if it had not realised the significance of the problem until then. However, nothing has emerged to tackle the crisis.

We are told we will get White Papers on training and employment. More than two years ago the Department of Enterprise and Employment told us that the White Papers would be available shortly. Why is there a delay? The White Papers while important and welcome will not produce immediate solutions. Discussion on them is likely to take a year and only then will new legislation be introduced.

Our party is proposing radical new measures, including special tax benefits for those creating jobs and training staff. We also want to enhance the competitiveness of the economy, address employers' PRSI, create enterprise zones and aid the services sector which has contributed so much to employment and is the major area of potential employment growth. I call on the Government to rationalise the measures for dealing with unemployment. At present, there are almost 80 different industrial development boards dealing with job creation. There are also eight Ministers and Ministers of State with responsibility for different employment and enterprise measures. If a proliferation of agencies and Ministers could solve the Irish unemployment and enterprise problems we have a solution already. However, we do not. There is excessive duplication and overlap and, as a consequence, money, opportunities and time are being wasted. Only one Minister should have responsibility for the different measures to deal with unemployment. Otherwise, there can be no overview of the situation.

Our social welfare system does not work properly either. That is not surprising as it is based on a system invented at the turn of the century, a system designed to compensate people who were without work for a few months at a time. It was never envisaged that people would be without work for years on end or would never work at all. It is a passive system. It was never envisaged that some areas would have unemployment rates of 90 per cent. Armed with the information we should be getting we should train people for jobs that exist or might be created. We can offer the long-term unemployed one-to-one assistance with the practicalities of getting jobs and help with CVs, job applications and interviews. We can give them a chance to work in the voluntary and social sectors to supplement incomes. We can get them out of the cycle of unemployment and give them real work experience.

Even with the measures I have outlined there are still major obstacles in the way of Irish entrepreneurs. Telecommunications have been mentioned. The telecommunications industry is changing fast. The services modern companies require are growing in complexity and are putting huge demands on the existing network. The move to fibre optic systems is no longer something to be planned for — it must start happening across the country right now. It is unbelievable that we do not have a telecentre in Ireland despite the fact that the greatest job creation potential in the world today exists in telemarketing and the telephonic communications area. If we can make these changes we can reverse our drop down the competitive table. In the last three years we have plummeted from ninth to 92nd place in terms of our competitiveness with countries around the world. When I talk to entrepreneurs about the problems they face, their recurring complaint is that they continuously run into EU directives. There seems to be no warning and little logic about when those rules appear.

I will conclude by offering two examples from my clinic in Galway of the lack of common sense that is applied to this issue. In the first case, a young unemployed person did not want to draw unemployment assistance but gave in and started doing so last August. He wanted to get onto a FÁS course on sound production and development for bands and so forth. As he was not six months on the live register he could not be considered for the FÁS course. In total frustration he took the boat to London last Friday and his mother rang me on Monday.

He had informed the unemployment office that he would be back in a fortnight but then he announced to her that he would not come back until Christmas. He wanted to know if there was any chance that somebody could sign on or get credits for him so that when he returned at Christmas he would have been signing on for six months and be able to join the FÁS course. As a matter of interest, he was receiving £20.40 per week so he was not signing on for the money; he was signing on simply to get on the course. Of course, the bureaucracy says no. Unless he returns from England and continues to sign on until Christmas he cannot join the course in the new year.

That is utterly ridiculous. This is a young man who wants to work and learn and who is going into an area of great potential. He has natural ability in the music and sound area. He has gone to England and the likelihood is that he will not come back. Another person who came to my clinic yesterday has been out of work for several years. His wife has a good steady job in Telecom Éireann. Because of her job, he does not qualify for any unemployment assistance due to the fact that UA is means tested. He does not have a problem with that, but again he has been all over the FÁS system to try to get into some form of training or social or community work to get him out of the house and into a job; but because his wife is employed and he does not qualify for unemployment assistance, he is not eligible to attend any of the FÁS schemes. There are two simple examples of common sense gone wrong.

I had the good fortune to work with people from all parties on the unemployment committee for about 12 months before the last election. We came up with many good, practical proposals. We came up with an all-party set of proposals to get people on the dole who want to work out to work. We came up against every possible obstacle that the bureaucracy and the public service could throw at us. We can talk all we like but until we start using a bit of common sense in regard to how we deal with unemployment in this country we will continue waffling as we are doing this evening.

Minister of State at the Department of the Taoiseach (Mr. J. Higgins)

I thank the Labour Party for bringing the motion to the House. I welcome once again the opportunity which this motion offers to outline the position as to the measurements of employment and unemployment, particularly in view of some of the confusing commentary which has been made in the media in recent times.

At the outset I want to stress that the Labour Force Survey provides the only objective information on employment and unemployment. The live register, on the other hand, relates to persons who fall within the scope of certain social welfare schemes. Changes in the administrative rules and practices governing these welfare schemes have an impact on the live register and this highlights very well why the live register should not be regarded as an objective measurement of unemployment. Nevertheless, I understand the concerns that have been expressed about the widening difference between the live register and the Labour Force Survey. This has been the subject matter of successive parliamentary questions in the other House.

Since the late 1970s the live register total has always exceeded the Labour Force Survey estimate of unemployment. The difference was relatively small until the mid 1980s but it has grown considerably since then, so clearly some new factors must have come into play during that time. The latest figures for April 1995 show that the number on the live register exceeds the survey estimate of the number unemployed by some 84,000. In a moment I will look at some of the factors that might account for this situation.

Lest anyone think that we are out of step with the rest of Europe, can I say — I brought this to the attention of the other House when parliamentary questions arose in relation to the discrepancy — that in relation to comparisons with other countries, there is a growing disparity between the two in virtually every other European country. For example, in Belgium the gap is 163,000; in Denmark, 130,000: in Greece, 188,000; in Italy the figure is huge, something over one million.

Before trying to explain the differential, it is important to understand the precise nature of the survey and the register. The Labour Force Survey was first conducted in Ireland in 1975 and has followed a consistent methodology since then. The survey has been conducted on an annual basis since 1983. It is the largest sample survey in the State and covers a sample of some 47,000 households, that is about one in 20 of all households.

The survey provides classification of persons employed and unemployed which are in accordance with standard definitions recommended by the International Labour Office. These classifications are used for international comparisons and also provide benchmark estimates of the standardised unemployment rate for April of each year. The survey provides information on an annual basis only. Preliminary summary results are published in October while more detailed reports are prepared later by the CSO. The preliminary results for 1995 were published on 24 October 1995 and it is these that have sparked off the latest controversy. The detailed report for 1994 is due for publication in the next two weeks.

Everyone recognises that it is essential for the management of the economy that statistics in the labour market are compiled regularly and that the statistics can be understood and trusted by the public. However, it has been customary for years now in the periods between the Labour Force Surveys to use the live register as a short term trend indicator for unemployment. This is an important point; it can be used to indicate only the trend in unemployment, that is, whether it is rising or falling and just how fast, but not to estimate the absolute level of unemployment. However, the widening gap between the register and the survey is obviously calling this limited usage into question. Furthermore, just as for unemployment, there is no comprehensive and timely short term indicator of trends in employment.

Not unexpectedly, the demand for more frequent and timely information on both employment and unemployment has been growing in recent times and especially in view of the latest survey figures. I recognise the legitimacy of these demands. At EU level proposals for labour force surveys based on sub-annual employment and unemployment estimates are under discussion at working party level.

The National Statistics Board has recommended in its Strategy for Statistics 1993 — 1997, that the CSO examine the feasibility of a sub-annual labour force survey. The new board, appointed on a statutory basis in late 1994, reviewed this recommendation and consulted over 100 users of statistics on the desirability of a sub-annual multipurpose survey covering labour force, market and social statistics. There has been widespread support both for sub-annual labour force statistics and for the development of a data base on a wide range of social statistics.

Following the recommendations from the board, proposals in relation to a quarterly survey have been formulated by the CSO in consultation with the relevant Government Departments and agencies. I intend to bring these proposals to Government in the coming weeks. As has been mentioned by the sponsor of the motion, Senator O'Sullivan, and Senator Fahey, there is a considerable cost factor involved; but in the interest of accurate, up to date data, and in conformity with the best international norms and standards, it is in everybody's interest that we have the sub-annual surveys and, without wishing to be pre-emptive, the Government can generally be assumed to be moving in the direction of sub-annual surveys, irrespective of the cost factor.

Senator O'Sullivan makes a valid point when she mentions the need to go behind the cold hard statistics, to humanise the figures. We will be looking at that aspect as well. If a survey is to be comprehensive, it should be as detailed, as multifaceted, as accurate and as penetrative as possible. It should be as comprehensive as possible in relation to the range of areas of activity, social and otherwise that should be investigated and we will be looking at that.

Senator Gallagher's point went somewhat gone beyond the scope of the actual motion itself. We are talking about the accuracy of the statistics as a barometer for unemployment and she strayed into the area of unemployment initiatives and unemployment performance and so on. However, from the point of view of accuracy, we should try and determine precisely what the figures are and we will be looking at that in the context of the division that will take place.

Senator O'Sullivan makes a valid point in relation to job creation initiatives and training programmes. Whatever initiatives we introduce will be better focused as a result of a general acceptance of the Labour Force Survey as being the accurate barometer.

I take the point made by Senator Fahey that we need radical new measures, and the Government is looking at that at present. That was very much the subject matter of a long Cabinet meeting. It will be the first in the series of radical new measures dealing with unemployment. I agree there is an over-prevalence of bureaucracy. Often many schemes are riddled with anomalies, distortions, red tape and inhibitions and we will have to remove many of these warts from the system.

The sub-annual survey, if agreed by the Government, will provide quarterly information on employment and unemployment as well as information on selected social topics. Data will be collected from householders using laptop computer technology and quarterly surveys and results will be available within about three months. This will be a considerable improvement on the current frequency and timeliness of labour force statistics. There will be a need for significant preparatory work in relation to sampling design, the selection of social topics, staff training and the use of new technology before the survey can begin.

I mentioned earlier that I would return to the issue of the gap between the live register and the Labour Force Survey figures, which is the subject of this motion. The CSO published an explanatory note with its most recent live register statement, which I have laid in the Oireachtas Library, indicating that the gap between the two sources is due to the essential differences in what they measure.

The recent LFS results are based on a classification of persons according to their own description of their situation, that is, whether at work, unemployed, working in the home, retired, etc., while, as I indicated previously, the live register is a count of claimants falling within the scope of certain social welfare schemes.

No single factor can explain all of the difference of 84,000. I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate what I have stated publicly, namely, that I do not believe, as has been suggested by some commentators, that the increasing difference is due to any increase in the level of social welfare fraud. While this is primarily a matter for the Minister for Social Welfare, I understand that wide ranging measures have been introduced to reduce the incidence of fraud and to ensure that the vast majority of people who sign on are simply exercising their full and proper entitlement to do so.

The following factors, on the other hand, are likely to have had an upward influence on the live register and to have contributed to the divergence in recent years: equality in the mid-1980s which increased the number of women signing on without any changes in their labour force status; the introduction of signing on as an eligibility requirement for subsequent participation in employment or training schemes; the increasing number of part-time and occasional workers, other than those on systematic short time, who sign on in respect of days when they are not employed; changes in the rules and practices in relation to means testing; changes in the levels of UA and UB payments and arrangements for the splitting of entitlements between spouses.

It is not possible to quantify the exact impact of any one of these factors but clearly the numbers signing on simply to qualify for training schemes and the numbers in temporary part-time employment who are legitimately signing on would account for a substantial proportion of the difference.

I am confident that arrangements will be agreed shortly to ensure that objective statistics on numbers employed and unemployed will be available on a quarterly basis. Besides giving us a much better picture of the real situation as regards each, the quarterly survey will be expanded to include inquiries on a range of social topics, as suggested by Senator O'Sullivan, for which we have at present very little information. The availability of the more frequent figures would lessen the reliance on the live register as an indicator. This can only be good because it allows us to reduce our dependence on a measure whose usefulness as a short-term statistical indicator of the level of unemployment has diminished greatly over the years.

Mr. Quinn

I appreciate the opportunity to speak and I welcome the Minister. I support the motion because I believe the present tools we have for measuring our success or otherwise in job creation are inadequate. The Minister explained well what the two measurements are: one measures unemployment and the other measures employment and job creation.

There is a serious danger that if we only publish unemployment figures which are not improving we will create an era of pessimism during which people will not be willing to invest. On the other hand, if we are able to show that jobs are being created, we will create optimism, which is the seed ground in which people are willing to invest. It is important that we measure both employment and unemployment. We know what the unemployment figure is but we should draw equal attention to the number of jobs being created. To do so, it may be necessary to carry out an unemployment survey more often than we do.

The most recent survey was published a week or so ago in respect of the year to last April. It provides interesting figures on which I will later concentrate for a few moments. These surveys are published only once a year and are six months out of date. On this basis they do not get anything like the attention paid to unemployment figures and the live register. I urge that we find some way to draw both measures to the attention of the public and that they be published at the same time.

Many Members have drawn attention to the critical importance of the service sector in creating jobs. In the future jobs will be in services and not in manufacturing. It is vitally important that we base our policy on this fact rather than continuing the approach we have had for 40 years of favouring manufacturing at every turn while penalising services.

The truth of this becomes blindingly obvious when we look at the latest employment survey. Of the 49,000 additional jobs created, more than three quarters were in services. The trend towards services is not something of the future and is not a speculative forecast that may or may not come to pass. This trend is definite and is a living reality. Even more frightening, this trend has been established for a long time but we have not recognised this properly and have not acted to exploit it fully, largely because we have been focusing on the wrong figures. We have focused on the measures of unemployment rather than on the measures of job creation.

If we look back not just one year but a whole generation, employment surveys show that by comparison with 1971 there are now 176,000 more people at work. Because employment in agriculture dropped in the period since 1971 by about 134,000, 311,000 extra jobs were created in the rest of the economy. Where did we create these jobs? Some 41,000 were created by Government employment schemes of one kind or another, a further 15,000 were created in industry and the remaining 255,000 were created in services. Over the past 24 years industry created less than 5 per cent of new jobs and services created over 80 per cent.

Services created more than four out of every five jobs created in this period, despite being discriminated against in taxation and job creation incentives. How many more jobs could we have created in services if the playing field had been level? Even more to the point, how many more jobs could we create in future if we levelled that playing field now? These are the kind of questions the employment survey encourages us to ask. We need to have this survey more frequently and to base our policy decisions on the facts it reveals.

I am an optimist. I believe we have to work to make sure that young people see, feel and hear from us the optimism they need. We in this House do not create jobs but the atmosphere in which others will do so. We must look for the measures and ways which will create this optimism, confidence and ability for people to get up and do something about creating jobs.

I was at a breakfast in Trinity College this morning. It was a well organised function and it is held a few times a year by the Foresight group, which consists of business students in their final year or two. They use the opportunity to encourage potential employers to join them for breakfast. The seating arrangements are well thought out. One employer would be surrounded by four students and the students pick the person they want to sit beside. We talked about what we were planning to do. The students I met were planning to look for jobs and they told me it was not easy to get the job they wanted. I told them that if I asked 100 American students what they planned to do when they finished their studies next year, a high proportion of them might say they planned to go into business for themselves and start an enterprise. A reasonably high proportion of them may already be dabbling in some sort of business or have already taken the first steps. I sense we have not managed to sell that concept to our young people. A large number of them still expect somebody else to create their job.

The reason this motion is important and why I am delighted to support it is because it draws attention to the fact that we have been concentrating on the wrong figures. We should know the live register figures, but I was not aware that 255,000 new service jobs were created in the last 24 years. We do not see those figures often enough or realise how many more jobs are being created. A large number of people would be willing to invest if they had confidence that our economy was improving and that jobs were being created. It is up to us to find ways of drawing attention to the good news, not just for the sake of it, so as to get people to invest.

I was drawn to this topic by listening to Senator Gallagher, who spoke about the bureaucracies experienced by somebody going into business. I was also impressed by Senator O'Sullivan when she talked about the black economy. We must concentrate on doing what we can. In that way we can encourage more people to do something for themselves rather than rely on somebody else to do it for them.

Mr. Howard

The question we should ask ourselves is how do we translate what we heard from Senator Quinn into practice. That is the issue and the answer to many of our problems. Senator Quinn is talking from a practical experience of what is involved and required in the market. We all accept and support what he said, but the challenge is how do we create the environment in which that understanding and capacity to deliver job opportunities can be created. I support the motion and welcome the assurance from the Minister that he intends to have proposals before the Government on the creation of the sub-annual surveys and their availability in the coming weeks.

I do not dispute the reasoning behind the Minister's arguments as regards the discrepancy between the Labour Force Survey and the live register of 84,000 people but the gap is still a large one. It was not expected, judging by the reaction from official quarters since the publication of those results. The Minister said similar gaps emerge in other European countries. For example, he said the difference in the survey in Greece was over 100,000 people, but that country has three times our population. Our discrepancy is way out of line with anything that has emerged in any other country.

I find it difficult to understand the reasons being advanced as to why the live register is different. We must have a method to establish whether a person is working or is unemployed, otherwise we are fooling ourselves. Therefore, I hope that what the Minister is proposing will resolve this conflict. This information is confusing. People are either working or they are unemployed. It is important we get an accurate figure and it is equally important that we have it to forecast future trends.

I welcome the indication that there has been an increase in employment. The figures quoted by Senator Quinn are impressive. He pointed out that a large proportion of the 255,000 jobs created over the last 24 years were in the service sector. That came about in spite of an environment that was not as encouraging as it could have been as far as creating jobs was concerned. We must face the question of creating incentives, especially where small and medium industries and enterprises are concerned, to encourage the creation of jobs and the taking on of people. Retail distribution services etc. would also come under that area.

Senator Gallagher gave an example of this. She wanted to hire a secretary, either in a full or a part-time capacity, but immediately encountered bureaucratic hassle. She is a professional person. If an ordinary small businessman had the opportunity to take on extra people and came up against that obstacle, they would not do it. That would be true of many people involved in the service sector. Even if the right atmosphere is there to take on extra people, the hassle involved is too great.

Five years ago a small builder told me he bought a patch of land and began building houses adjacent to a town. By the time he built his first five houses, 22 officials of one kind or another had come to his site to ensure he was not defrauding the public, the State or somebody else. He built another 15 houses and tore down his shop. These officials, many from the same institution, were arriving day in and day out. Four of them came from the local county council while others came from the house building guarantee scheme and the Department of Enterprise and Employment. This became a nightmare.

We must remove these bureaucratic barriers. The European Union is coming to the same conclusion. A committee established by the EU satisfied itself and has almost satisfied the Commission that overregulation and legislative and administrative requirements where small and medium sized enterprises are concerned have emerged as a barrier to the creation of jobs. Recommendations to indicate what improvements and changes can be made in bringing about an atmosphere of deregulation which can lead to job creation are likely to emerge in Madrid next month.

We co-operated in creating this problem over the years. We allowed a mentality and atmosphere to develop that favoured the replacement of the worker with machines. We grant aided the machine but taxed the worker and the employer out of jobs. The environment we created encouraged employers to replace workers with machines where possible, because they would be less trouble. We are now reaping the whirlwind.

Much can be done and I would speak for longer if I had time. There is widespread agreement on the problems. If we agreed how to implement the ideas put forward by Senator Quinn, we would achieve a great deal. We should recognise there is a bureaucratic barrier and a lack of understanding about bringing about the atmosphere in which jobs can be created and people can be encouraged to take on jobs. Unfortunately, there are vested interests involved in preserving that situation. I regret having to mention that, but it is an issue we must face.

We have also persuaded people that if one goes to college and qualifies as an accountant, one must become an accountant, or if a person goes to an agricultural college he must become a farmer. We have made people think that if a job is not available within the sphere in which they were trained, they must go on the live register. This, along with the taxation and social welfare systems, has killed incentive. We must shake up not only the bureaucracy in Government and State agencies but also the education system and second level schools so that people are educated for life and given the ability to survive, not merely to go to third level or social welfare. A person may find a job which does not suit him but will do until he finds something else. We have vast resources and a good educational system which enables people to get qualifications. But if a person cannot get a job in his or her specific professional area, surely that expertise can be used elsewhere. We have channelled people in a narrow way so that if they do not find a position, they find few opportunities available to them.

As I said, we have Ministers, boards and task forces, all of which sends a poor signal. We must realise that young people coming into the labour market expect so much because that is what they are promised. We do not deliver, no matter who is in Government. We promise young people that if they qualify we will provide jobs for them, but we fail to deliver. I do not see light at the end of this tunnel.

I agree with Senator Quinn that we harp on unemployment figures and run ourselves down. At this time last year there was a by-election in Cork and I spoke at length on radio and in interviews about all the jobs we had created. Although we had provided thousands of jobs, there were still 285,000 people unemployed at that time. Even if I had said we had created 100,000 jobs it would not have made any difference because of the numbers unemployed. That creates an air of pessimism and when a nation is pessimistic the economy becomes depressed, because people are afraid to spend. This has nothing to do with Labour or Democratic Left being in Government — people are afraid to invest in a climate of high unemployment where pessimism emanates from the establishment, the State and the population at large.

We can fiddle with Labour Force Surveys and unemployment statistics forever, but if we are to resolve any of these problems we must realise that tax on work is pushing us down the international competitiveness league.

Acting Chairman

Senator, if you want to give any time to Senator Daly you should finish now.

Mr. Kelleher

My apologies. I must give time to my colleague because his speech is almost as good as mine. Between our two contributions something positive may come from this debate. We can debate figures, statistics and how they are quantified ad nauseam, but we must remove the obstacles to job creation. If the Minister takes that message to Cabinet in time for the next budget we may have done some good.

Mr. Daly

I thank Senator Kelleher for giving me the opportunity to contribute. In view of the discrepancy between the live register and the Labour Force Survey this Labour motion is timely and I support it. I am not sure if Labour would put such a motion down in these circumstances if it was on this side of the House, but if there has been a conversion on the road to Damascus let us hope it is a good conversion——

Ms Gallagher

There has been no conversion; we are as practical as ever.

Ms O'Sullivan

We are all working together.

Mr. Daly

——and that they will keep working for the positive aspects. There is widespread confusion because of the discrepancy in the figures; but, whether they are right or wrong, a sizeable number of people are unemployed, seeking employment and unable to get it. Many of them are long-term, chronic unemployed, many are young people and many are women. I welcome any study the Minister of State will undertake and I know he and the Government are interested in finding a solution to the problem.

On 26 October the Government had a full session on how it might deal with the long-term unemployed. The reality is that 45 or 50 per cent of the registered unemployed are long-term unemployed, many of whom are disadvantaged. About half of that figure have no formal education. As has been said by other speakers, we have a chronic long-term problem which requires a number of initiatives in order to find a solution.

The first prerequisite is to identify the unemployed who are genuinely seeking employment and break them down into categories. There used to be a system whereby the unemployment figures were broken down into categories and it was possible to tell how many plasterers, plumbers, welders, fitters and so on were unemployed. For some inexplicable reason that system was abolished. In the short time that I was Minister for Social Welfare I endeavoured to reinstate it. If the long-term unemployed especially could be categorised into plumbers, block layers, welders, teachers, professionals and so on it would be possible to, at least, identify a way forward and formulate policies to deal with the situation. For example, if 50,000 block layers were unemployed, some fairly urgent construction projects could be undertaken.

I cannot understand how it is possible to plan for the unemployed when there is no accurate assessment of the qualifications of the labour force. I understood that the Department of Social Welfare and the Revenue Commissioners were trying to find that out but, to my knowledge, they have not done so yet. If all the training and unemployment schemes are taken into account, there is still quite a sizeable problem.

In relation to investment in the development agencies, I wish to refer in particular to the lack of capital investment which has been provided for Shannon Development to deal with some of the industrial sites in the mid-west region. The industrial estate in Shannon, which was for many years a shining example of regional industrial development, is now in a shambles. Senator Howard has been through the estate and knows about this. The bigger industrial bases are derelict with windows broken and doors barred. Lana'knit, which was probably one of the biggest bases in the industrial estate, and the old bus company, which was Bombardier and then a new company was established, are locked up but, what is worse, they are run down and neglected.

That is not the fault of Shannon Development but is due to the absence of Government finance to undertake the reconstruction and reorganisation of those very important industrial bases. They are a very bad example for industrialists who visit that estate. I invite the Minister down any weekend to see the state of that industrial estate due to the shortage of capital investment to modernise it. The only way to get industrialists in is with attractive locations for them to set up their businesses. The Shannon industrial zone at present is not conducive to attracting any industrial project.

Mr. Neville

I welcome the debate and congratulate Senator O'Sullivan for giving us the opportunity to discuss this. The issue has been in the public domain for some weeks and is surrounded by a certain amount of confusion and debate. It is important that the Minister had the opportunity to give his view of the situation and I listened to him very carefully.

The fact that there is an 84,000 discrepancy between the Labour Force Survey and the live register figures requires analysis and explanation. The Minister has gone some way towards doing this tonight but further examination should take place. I have been surprised for some time that the strong growth in the economy and low inflation and interest rates have not been reflected in a drop in the unemployment levels, as all the necessary factors are there for economic development and employment creation. I always felt that there would be a period where the economy would grow without substantially increasing employment, mainly because of higher returns to scale as the economy develops and output grows. In times of depression in industry there is a slackness in efficiency followed by a period of growth in the economy and output which takes up that slack. I felt that improvements in the economy would lead to inevitable improvements in productivity. I felt for all those reasons that, after a period, economic growth would be reflected in the level of employment creation.

I note that employment in the year up to mid-April 1995 increased by 4 per cent, which was 49,000 jobs. That is a very significant figure. That is the largest annual increase in employment on record. That performance follows on from an equally credible performance in the preceding year between April 1993 and April 1994 when employment grew by 7.5 per cent.

It is important to acknowledge that the private sector is the main provider of new jobs. Over the past two years, private sector employment increased by 60,000, or 8.6 per cent. We do not always give due recognition to the private sector for the contribution which it is making to the growth in the economy. It is the Government's job to create the climate for growth but the growth itself must be created by the employers. We should recognise that the private sector has contributed substantially to the improved situation.

To any objective observer the performance is quite impressive, especially when compared to growth in some other EU economies. Over the same period, employment in the EU as a whole actually fell. In the long term our employment prospects look even better. Since 1987 private sector employment has grown by a quarter, which is considerably better than any other EU country. We are great in this country at giving bad news and announcing bad statistics and increases in unemployment. However, we should also recognise the positive aspects of what successive Governments have done.

The new Labour Force Survey figures have resulted in a revision of the rate of standard unemployment down to 12.8 per cent. This represents a material improvement and an acceleration of the downward trend in recent years. Perhaps more importantly, Ireland's unemployment rate is rapidly converging on the EU average, which stood around 11 per cent in July. In 1993 the average rate of unemployment in Ireland was almost 16 per cent whereas it was 11 per cent in the EU as a whole. We should recognise that we are converging towards the general EU position.

The revised employment figures from the recent survey provide internationally comparable figures and is a more objective and consistent indicator of unemployment than the live register. As the Minister stated, these are only produced annually. I was interested to hear the Minister's contribution because I had some information on some of the suggested reasons for the increased divergence. This is an important analysis which shows why this divergence is there and the real figures.

We have come a long way from the days when former Taoiseach, Jack Lynch, stated that if the figure for unemployment numbered over 100,000, the Government of the day should resign. Comparatively speaking, the figure for growth in unemployment is false. It does not take account of factors the Minister outlined, such as equality legislation and its impact; the introduction of eligibility to sign on for people involved in community employment schemes and various training courses under the social employment scheme and the number of part-time and occasional workers in the economy. The latter has been an area of major growth because employers require more flexibility among workers. A downside to this exists in the area of labour and employment rights, but it is a fact of life that employers are looking towards part-time and occasional employees as a way to manage their labour costs.

The Minister stated that the divergence was influenced by changes in the rules and practice in relation to means testing and payment of unemployment assistance and benefit with regard to the arrangement to split payments between spouses. These factors go some way to explain what is happening but a more in-depth study is required to ensure that people fully understand the implications. A movement towards regular surveys to indicate the exact figure for unemployment is also needed. That figure has a national and international impact with regard to how the economy and the country perform. It also has an impact on public morale. People hear that employment is being created but the figure of 300,000 is regularly quoted as the number of those out of work. The real figure is nearer 200,000. It is important that we move toward the true figure because people will lose confidence in the figures provided by the live register. These figures will be disputed because nobody knows what they represent. The sooner we move towards the true figure outlined in the live register survey, the better.

In conclusion, the rate of unemployment is clearly on a very welcome downward trend. This situation should, and will, be maintained due to the nature of current economic expansion. This is a vital development in Irish society because unemployment is seen as a key factor in institutionalising social inequity. It will be seen by those who helped to establish and maintain a consensus approach to policy formulation as a validation of their stance. It will strengthen the case to continue along those lines when the present arrangement expires in 1996-97. The social partnership and the consensus approach to managing this situation have produced results. This survey proves that point.

Ms Honan

I welcome the opportunity to speak on the motion. There are a number of statistics which are vital to any Government in the formulation of economic policy, and one of those is the number of people who are unemployed. The country seems to have been ensnared in a major bureaucratic tangle with regard to this issue. This was recently illustrated by the publication of two different sets of unemployment statistics.

A major discrepancy exists between the figure in the live register, which shows that 276,000 people are unemployed, and the annual Labour Force Survey, which shows that 192,000 people are out of work. This represents a discrepancy of 84,000. If there were 276,000 unemployed people, we would be formulating an economic strategy to cater for a country where the overall rate of unemployment is 20 per cent; if the figure is only 192,000, the rate of unemployment is only 14 per cent of the total workforce. Different economic policies are appropriate to each of these situations. A more exact figure should be provided. How can a coherent economic policy be formulated if we are unsure of the true level of unemployment? Serious doubts have already been expressed in relation to the reliability of the GDP figures as a measure of real economic activity. This is another key figure for consideration by the Government. Further confusion should not be introduced by having a layer of uncertainty and inaccuracy regarding a key national statistic such as the level of unemployment.

It was stated earlier that, either hundreds of millions of pounds are being paid out in unemployment compensation to people who are not really seeking work or the Labour Force Survey seriously underestimates the extent of the problem. I believe that a substantial element of under-reporting exists in the Labour Force Survey. Many people would be reluctant to tell a complete stranger, calling at their front door, that they, or another member of their family, are out of work. There may be a case that people are unwilling to provide this information and that is why the discrepancy exists. However, it is not known if that is the case.

I agree with the thrust of the motion that a more regular system of conducting surveys be put in place. Great care would have to be taken in designing the wording of such surveys. If they do not provide correct information, what is the point of carrying them out? The answer provided by some people when asked if they are unemployed might be very different if they were asked whether they were available for work. If the wide discrepancy between the numbers on the live register and Labour Force Survey continues, what good will conducting more frequent surveys do? We will not be any wiser than we are now.

The composition of the live register must be more closely considered. The Departments of Enterprise and Employment and Social Welfare should conduct an investigation into whether the live register overstates the figure for unemployment. Given the amount of money expended on unemployment benefits each year, this should be a priority.

Another problem is the fact that people sign on for unemployment benefit in employment exchanges. The only thing exchanged in these places is money. Another network of services is provided under the auspices of FÁS where those seeking work can be matched with suitable jobs. I do not believe that two parallel systems should be in operation to cope with the unemployment problem, one which gives people money in the form of State benefit and the other which attempts to find them suitable employment. Presumably everyone who signs on at an employment exchange is available for work or seeking employment. If they are not, why is the State paying them? A strong argument exists in favour of rationalising the entire system and integrating dole offices with the job-finding services of FÁS.

I also believe that the integration of the Revenue and social welfare systems would help to clear up confusion. I am aware that that is supposed to be happening. In the previous Government, the then Minister of State for Social Welfare, Deputy Bruton, had responsibility for this. What is the current status of that process? Poverty traps exist in our system and many Members are aware of people who consider that it is not worth their while to take up employment. I am also concerned about young people who get into the habit of signing on at employment exchanges when they leave school. These people become aware of the long-term unemployed who have been signing on for so long that they are now almost unemployable. It is not appropriate for young school leavers to enter that culture. If employment exchanges and FÁS offices were amalgamated, people would enter the offices with the intent of seeking a job while signing on for unemployment benefit. This would be much more helpful in relation to young people coming on the live register.

At present one State agency, the Department of Social Welfare, hands out money to citizens while another, the Department of Finance, takes money from them. Successive Ministers for Finance have spoken about the need for change in this area but little has been achieved. The gap between the Labour Force Survey and the live register appears to be widening. The more it widens the further we drift from an accurate picture of the true state of our economic situation. It is time this is dealt with. However, if more frequent surveys do not produce more accurate information, they will be a waste of time.

Ms Kelly

I am in favour of a total review of the way we count the unemployed. As far as I am concerned, we need to know the number who are totally dependent on social welfare and the number who need it to supplement their income. I do not believe present statistics give us the type of data the Government needs to plan ahead. Over the past few years the economy has grown at a rate which is one of the fastest in Europe, although this has not helped the majority of those who are dependent on social welfare.

As the Minister said, the live register incorporates such a wide body of people that it is difficult to ascertain the number who are totally dependent on social welfare. It includes those who sign on for credits, the self-employed, those who sign on for a few days each week and seasonal workers working on the docks at Foynes Harbour or meat factories, for example. We should also include those who receive disability benefit and other forms of social welfare. They are as important as the unemployed because they too are totally dependent on social welfare. We should also take into account the 11,000 who are on low incomes and who receive family income supplement. Without this supplement they would be more dependent on social welfare but at present they are willing to take up low paid employment.

I am concerned about the plight of the long-term unemployed, whom we need to identify. A man over 45 years of age who has been out of work for more than three years and with few skills has a 90 per cent chance of not getting work again. Looking around the House most Members here are 45 years or will be shortly and it is hard to think that we could be regarded as being on the scrap heap in a few years. It is terrible indictment to say that people are of no use after they reach the age of 45.

If the economy grows by 8 or 9 per cent, who will fill the new jobs? It will not be the 45 year old man with few skills; instead young people will stay at home and will return from abroad and women will be attracted back into the workforce. It is not only a question of reducing the overall number of unemployed but we must also reduce the number of long-term unemployed. The 45 year old long-term unemployed man will usually be the head of a family and his disillusionment — I am not being sexist; this is predominantly a male problem — will be felt by it. A community with large housing estates and a considerable proportion of long-term unemployed males who are practically unemployable is a major social problem. That is why I would like a total review of the way we count the unemployed. As Senator Neville said, if the figures are not more accurate, their validity will be questioned. The Minister should try to give us a more accurate view of the situation as soon as possible.

Mr. D. Kiely

This debate is very worth while. Unemployment is the largest issue which this, the last and future Governments will face and it should be seriously looked at. The discrepancy between the two surveys is amazing. I am delighted the Minister said that he intends to do this on a quarterly basis. Many people have spoken about how the unemployment situation could be tackled. I was glad Senator Quinn mentioned the services sector, where there is an opening to create more jobs.

Although much good has come from the White Paper on Education, we should look seriously at taking on more career guidance teachers to direct young people to university or to training courses and to encourage them at second level to work towards FÁS training schemes. I agree with Senator Daly that surveys should be done to ascertain how many plasterers, carpenters and bricklayers we need, for example.

As regards third level education, we are not providing the necessary jobs for our highly qualified young people in certain sectors. My nephew spent seven years at third level and received a variety of higher degrees in chemistry. Yet when he looks for a job the criteria laid down is that he must have two to three years' experience. That is wrong and should be looked at. Training programmes should be put in place for university graduates who cannot get jobs unless they have the necessary training. An increase in the number of career guidance teachers would be the answer to this long-term problem.

We could look at the public service. Gardaí, teachers, soldiers and civil servants could retire after 25 years service in order to open up opportunities for young people. I agree with a lot of what Senator Kelly said. When these people would retire, aged 45, with a reasonable pension they would have enough experience, contacts and determination to set up their own small businesses. At the same time this would open up the way for a new intake of people into the public service. This system has worked quite well in the United States and in other countries and we will have to look at it in depth.

There is also the black market. If there is a discrepancy of 84,000 people, the black market will have to be examined in depth. Every Member of the Oireachtas knows the black market in this country is rampant and I am glad to see some Departments tightening things up as a result.

Mr. Neville

The black economy.

Mr. D. Kiely

Black market economy or the black economy. Analyse it any way you like, but it is a black market no matter what way you look at it. Everybody knows there are people in large towns and cities claiming social welfare in the morning in their overalls and working as a bricklayer or whatever during the day. It is good to see Departments such as the Department of the Environment and local authorities tightening up on that aspect of the problem. Other areas should be tightened up too.

On behalf of the 26 or 27 per cent of people who are unemployed in the area, would someone try to create jobs in north Kerry. I have reams of statistics from SFADCo, Forbairt and so on. The county enterprise boards are the only agencies which are likely to create jobs and I must compliment them. They are doing a good job. If one Minister could be put in charge of industry and employment, all the bureaucracy would be cut out. Setting up boards or starting up a task force if there is a problem or huge unemployment only creates another layer of bureaucracy and we end up with bureaucrats and no jobs.

Ms O'Sullivan

I thank all the Senators who contributed to the debate, which was worthwhile and constructive. I also thank the Minister for his contribution.

When Senator Fahey suggested we should have quarterly Labour Force Surveys, the Minister indicated there is an intention to have sub-annual surveys. That is welcome and we are delighted to be told this in the course of this debate.

At least four Senators — Senator Gallagher, Senator Fahey, Senator Howard and Senator Kelleher — if not more, referred to the various impediments which still exist in the system for people who want to create employment. In fairness, there has been a shift in this area and there have been improvements in simplifying the system. Obviously, from the direct experience of Senators, there has not been enough improvement and more needs to be done.

Senator Kelleher, Senator Honan, Senator Kiely, Senator Kelly and Senator Daly referred to changes in the education system and called for greater linking between education and the work place and I agree with them. We need a more real link between school and work, particularly for those who leave school early because they tend to be the people who fall into long-term unemployment. I support the concept of giving those people some kind of structure straight after leaving school so they do not fall into the black hole of unemployment. The applied leaving certificate and the transition year are two areas within education which are addressing to some extent that issue. They are making the world of work more real to students who may not go on to third level education.

Senators Daly, Kelly and Kiely referred to the need to categorise people more accurately and looked, as I did, at the skills individuals on the register may have or may need to develop in order be able to link into the workforce. Indeed, the Minister also gave us some hope in that area when he said there has been widespread support for the development of a database and a wide range of social statistics. I assumed he was covering that area when he said there will be more accurate detail information on the specific categories of the long-term unemployed.

Senator Honan seemed to imply, although she may not have intended to, we were indicating that all of the 84,000 people in this area of discrepancy between the live register figures and the Labour Force Survey might have been defrauding the system. It is not our intention to indicate that and I do not think there is any evidence to suggest that is the case. Nevertheless, there is an element of a black economy there which obviously must be tackled. We are not suggesting all of those people are somehow defrauding the system. Senator Kelly, in particular, along with the Minister and Senator Neville, indicated that there are a number of people included in the live register figures who would not really be considered to be totally dependent on unemployment benefit, such as part-time workers, seasonal workers and people waiting to go on various FÁS schemes. For example, one must have evidence of being on the register for a certain amount of time before being eligible for a community employment scheme.

I will finish by referring to what I thought were the two most positive speeches, those of Senator Quinn and Senator Neville. Senator Quinn gave us great scope for a positive outlook, particularly in light of his own experience. He pointed out that the figures in the survey indicate that the services sector has been successful and shown great promise in the creation of employment. He said that by concentrating on that positive aspect of the survey we would give more hope and encouragement to employers. I hope we will concentrate on that positive area to mobilise employers to take on workers. Senator Neville also referred to that area.

Senator Neville mentioned that the figure of 49,000 was the largest increase on record. Senator Kelleher's pessimism is misplaced and his suggestion that no jobs were being created was quite inaccurate because 49,000 jobs were created between April 1994 and April 1995. What he said during the by-election was more accurate than what he said tonight. Senator Neville referred to the fact that our statistics are converging to the general European position. That indicates great hope, but we must continue to address problem areas and the discrepancy in the figures. I welcome the Minister's intention to take up that issue and publish more regular reports which will give us accurate figures on which we can work. I thank everybody who contributed to the debate and I hope the statistics in Portugal tonight will also be positive.

Question put and agreed to.

An Leas-Chathaoirleach

When is it proposed to sit again?

Ms O'Sullivan

At 10.30 a.m. tomorrow.

Seanad Éireann debate - Wednesday, 15 Nov 1995