asked the Taoiseach if he will comment on the underlying cause of the unemployment figure of 58,547 on 14th April, 1967, and 60,181 in the previous week, in comparison with 53,620 unemployed on the total live register at a comparable date in 1966; and whether he sees any possibility of improving the situation.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Figures.
2.
The Industrial Analysis of the Live Register as at mid-April, 1967, due to be published early next month, will set out the changes, and the reasons therefor so far as they can be determined, since the corresponding date last year. In regard to the second portion of the Deputy's question the recent Budget statement of the Minister for Finance indicated the Government's views on the question of providing increased employment; and—in the course of forthcoming debates on Estimates for Departments—the Ministers concerned will detail various plans to that end.
Would the Taoiseach regard it as a serious situation— as I do—that only 1,000 new industrial jobs were created last year and can he give the House any indication that there will be an improvement in this situation, leading us towards a better employment position? How many new jobs will be created this year?
I can say that it is disappointing that we have not achieved better progress but I can give this indication as to the progress we are now making: unemployment benefit claimants showed a drop of 2,000 as compared with the previous week and 8,000 compared with the high level in the second week of January. The total live register is now at its lowest figure since mid-December. These are very positive indications of an improvement in the situation.
If we are to get near full employment, we require 236,000 new jobs between now and 1980. Last year we created 1,000 new industrial jobs. So far as we in the Labour Party are concerned, we can see no plans for creating new jobs this year or next year. Would the Taoiseach say that this is a serious matter?
I should like to refer the Deputy to the comprehensive statement made in the course of the Budget speech and in particular, I should like to refer to page 27 of the Budget Statement.
Does the Taoiseach not recognise the fact that there may be fewer on unemployment benefit because they have been unemployed for so long, for six months, and are now in receipt of unemployment assistance?
We covered that in the Budget in that we are extending the period from six months to 12 months.
That is a correction as far as payment is concerned. The Taoiseach said that there were fewer on unemployment benefit and I am suggesting that this may be so because they have exhausted benefit and are now in receipt of unemployment assistance.
I have also said that the total live register is now at its lowest for several months.
That is a seasonal change.
It is a progressive change.
We criticised the Budget because of its lack of proposals for creating new jobs. Can the Taoiseach tell the House what positive plans the Government have for creating new jobs? We need 11,000 new jobs each year between now and 1980. Have the Government any positive plans for this or is the Taoiseach relying on seasonal changes?
There are plans and these will be unfolded as the Estimates are brought before the House.
3.
asked the Taoiseach what was the number of insured persons unemployed in mid-February in each year from 1957 to 1967 inclusive, and at the latest available date.
With your permission, Sir, I propose to circulate in the Official Report a statement giving the number of insured persons on the Live Register at the dates specified. The figures for 1966 and 1967 are not comparable with those for earlier years owing to the changes in the content of the Live Register introduced in January, 1966.
Following is the statement:
NUMBER of insured persons on the Live Register at the dates specified.
|
Date |
Number |
||
|
16th |
February, |
1957 |
88,045 |
|
15th |
,, |
1958 |
80,755 |
|
14th |
,, |
1959 |
77,073 |
|
13th |
,, |
1960 |
68,941 |
|
18th |
,, |
1961 |
58,481 |
|
17th |
,, |
1962 |
55,756 |
|
16th |
,, |
1963 |
65,356 |
|
15th |
,, |
1964 |
58,448 |
|
12th |
,, |
1965 |
59,193 |
|
18th |
,, |
1966 |
55,194 |
|
17th |
,, |
1967 |
60,888 |
|
16th |
March, |
1967 |
60,490 |
Might I ask did the changes whereby we struck 11,000 persons off the unemployment register affect insured persons or did they affect only smallholders in receipt of unemployment assistance?
The numbers of insured persons registered at local offices on the dates specified in 1966 and 1967, but not included in the live register figures given in the reply owing to the changes, were as follows: on 18th February, 1966, smallholders, 7,918, and others, four, a total of 7,922; on 17th February, 1967, smallholders, 8,808, and others, three, a total of 8,811; and on 16th March, 1967, smallholders 8,758, and others, two, giving a grand total of 8,760.
These are insured persons who are also smallholders?
Yes.