I have a note about the live register which I will make available to the Committee because it is quite succinct and I omitted to give additional information contained in it. The introduction of the equal treatment provisions in the Social Welfare Bill, 1995 enabled many women, who in the past were prevented from doing so, to sign on in their own right. In the nine years between April 1986 and April 1995, the numbers on the live register increased by 44.400. Females accounted for 35,000 of that, over 80 per cent. That is a partial explanation for the divergence. Also, an increasing number of part-time and casual workers sign on in respect of the days when they do not work. They may describe themselves as being at work, but it is part-time work. There is evidence that part-time working is not the preferred option of the majority, but it suits some people and should be available in an open mixed economy. There were approximately 23,000 such part-time workers; it is now estimated that there are about 31,000. I have already referred to the idea of people splitting their entitlements and to the changes in means testing procedures.
On the control system relating to the live register, weekly attendance at the local social welfare office is no longer required. The system has been computerised and, once on the system, people receive their payments, in most cases, through the post office and only have to attend the local social welfare office every four weeks.
There is quite a substantial control mechanism in place. In 1995, for example, there were in excess of 65,000 means reviews of unemployment assistance. This was in addition to the specialist activity of the external control unit which focuses exclusively on interviewing customers on the live register. In addition, the special investigation unit carries out inspections on employer premises and investigates reports of working and claiming. It tends to concentrate, with the help of specialist inspection squads, on the construction, catering and haulage industries.
I have taken note of the point made by the Deputies about getting more information along the lines mentioned by Deputy O'Hanlon. Such information would be extremely useful to everybody, particularly if it was broken down by constituency or region. I will try to get that information for the House. I have nothing further to say about the live register unless people have specific questions.
Deputy Broughan asked a number of neutral, impartial and excellent questions. There is a conundrum regarding our live register. The reason it seems to be so unchangeable in contrast to live registers in other European countries is that we still have a labour market that is growing in absolute terms. Due to its demographic composition, our society is still producing in excess of 25,000 extra entrants into the labour market even allowing for retirements. Given that the peak, in terms of population, is aged 15 or 16 at the present time, that demographic trend will continue for at least the next ten or 15 years.
In addition to that demographic factor, our labour market is the most atypical labour market in the whole of the European Union in that it expands and moves, in migration terms, in a way that is disproportionately larger than any other single European Union labour market. Between Britain and Ireland, for example, there is an integrated single market for the purposes of employment. The migration figures fluctuate quite substantially. Net migration out of this country would appear to be down to a relatively low figure of 5,000 and, in labour market terms, we are not necessarily getting sufficient statistical evidence of people retiring in England and coming home; such people go back into the system but not necessarily into the labour market. Deputy O'Hanlon would have firsthand experience, in a constituency like Cavan-Monaghan, of people who have sold their business or residence in parts of Britain and retired home with their UK pensions. They compound our labour market statistics and produce distorting results.
Our tax system also produces distorting results, and it is for that reason this year's budget and last year's focused on the category of person referred to by Deputy Broughan. Not everybody in the private sector got increases under the Programme for Competitiveness and Work. In many cases this was because the company in question was not in a position to pay for them. However, leaving aside benefits received in this year’s and last year’s budget on class A PRSI contributions, a single person in the low wage category who has worked over the period of theProgramme for Competitiveness and Work and obtained the increases will be 14 per cent better off at the end of the process, after inflation is taken into account, than he was at the beginning. We can all quote statistics in different ways. Deputy McDowell very cleverly quoted the statistic that it is net additional earnings that are taxed at the rate of 56 per cent rather than the full amount, and that if one were to take the full earnings into account, the total tax take would be closer to 30 per cent. However, it is clear that our level of personal taxation is unacceptably high for a substantial number of people, and that is why the apparent performance of the Irish economy, which has been very favourably written about by international commentators, is not necessarily perceived as such in many quarters. There is, nevertheless, considerable external evidence to suggest that all the indicators, for example retail sales of alcoholic beverages, clothing etc., that would be used to measure activity in the economy are very positive at the present time. In a society like ours the benefits are unevenly distributed, and it is one of the functions of the Department of Social Welfare to try to provide in part for equality in the distribution of income. In a complex open market economy it is very difficult to get that balance right, and there will continue to be distortions in some areas. The budget I introduced this year concentrated on addressing distortions at the lower end of the employment area. We have consciously set out to widen the gap between net take-home pay and social welfare for someone in a low paid job.
There are emerging labour shortages in our economy in the skills area. In the Deputy's constituency, Gateway 2000 is expanding its European telemarketing support services system. There are labour market shortages of people with language skills. That end of the labour market is much better addressed and provided for than the semi — and low-skilled area. We can tackle this in two ways. The New Zealand way, as we heard from Finance Minister Ms Ruth Richardson, is to cut welfare. That is not what I would propose in this instance.
