asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development the plans he has for reducing unemployment in 1978.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Problem.
3.
The pre-election manifesto aimed at a reduction of 20,000 in the numbers out of work in 1978. The strategy and conditions for achieving the targets for 1978 and for subsequent years are set out in the recent White Paper on National Development 1977-1980.
The manifesto proposed immediate action to provide 20,000 new jobs by a special programme of spending in key areas. The measures taken to date resulted in the creation of 5,180 jobs by the end of 1977. The programme of action which the Tánaiste and Minister for Finance announced in the recent budget, will ensure that the total number of jobs created by direct Government action will amount to nearly 23,000, well in excess of the 20,000 promised in the manifesto.
In addition to the results of the Government's special employment programme, a significant increase in employment should result from the acceleration of growth in the economy as a whole. The actual pace of this employment growth in the private sector will of course be influenced by many factors. In addition to the beneficial impact of the Government's own actions, an easing of inflation, supported by moderation in pay settlements would help to accelerate this employment growth.
Would the Minister not agree that the commitment in the manifesto is not to 20,000 new jobs but to a reduction in unemployment of 20,000?
I agree.
Would the Minister tell us in the light of that what figure he would consider appropriate for the live register at the end of this year without ambiguity and without cooking the books if the manifesto target is to be fulfilled?
I am not cooking the books. The first sentence of my reply said:
The pre-election manifesto aimed at a reduction of 20,000 in the numbers out of work in 1978.
That is the statement we made before the election; it is repeated in the White Paper and I am repeating it today. Let us be clear on that. The Deputy's second question asked for a forecast of the numbers that might be on the live register. When? At what date?
On 1 January next.
If the Deputy tables the question I shall have a careful reply to it prepared. As the White Paper spells out and as I have said on numerous occasions outside the House as well as inside it, there is a whole series of factors which influence the numbers on the live register.
Including the Government.
Including Government policy—I shall deal with that if I may. I gather that one of the few possible points of agreement between the Opposition and ourselves is that reductions in the numbers on the live register are unlikely to occur on a 1:1 basis with increases in the numbers at work. A crude rule-of-thumb calculation might be to say that reduction in the numbers on the live register is of the order of 5-6 for every increase of ten in the numbers at work. So, if we are talking about an increase of 20,000 at work there could be a reduction of the order of 10,000 to 12,000 in the numbers on the live register. Coming now to the influence of Government policy, as the House knows we are committed as one of our steps towards ending discrimination in the treatment of women. We are committed to expanding the availability of unemployment assistance to single women this autumn. Among other consequences that will have the effect of increasing the numbers on the live register. Is that to be taken then as implying in some sense a failure to reach our target in jobs? Hence, I said that if the Deputy was specifically interested in that question, he should table a question and I shall have it answered.
Would the Minister not agree that the plain reading of the manifesto by the electorate implies a reduction of 20,000 in the live register at the end of the year and would he state——
No. That is the Deputy's interpretation. We were very careful to say an increase in employment, a reduction in the numbers out of work. A reduction in the numbers out of work means what it says. There is no reference to live register or statistical calculations. Of course it must be a fact that if one more person is at work there is one fewer out of work and all the attempts of the Opposition to confuse this, to drag in irrelevant statistical calculations——
(Interruptions.)
We are talking about facts; let us stick to to them.
(Interruptions.)
That is not true; that is rubbish.
Publish your own rubbish.
Deputies will address the Chair.
What about those who go direct from school to work?
It is still true.
Questions should be directed through the Chair.
(Interruptions.)
Deputy Bruton must restrain himself. Deputy Kelly, for the last supplementary question.
Will you allow me to ask a supplementary question?
I do not think I will.
The earlier stages of the Minister's previous reply referred to the live register time and again. Would the Minister tell the House, apart from the live register, how many people he estimates are out of work at this time? I may say that the Minister behind him would not recognise the difference between the live register and total unemployment.
This is a different question from the one on the Order Paper.
How many are out of work in the country at the moment?
Will the Deputy please address the Chair?
We do not have accurate figures as the Deputy knows and I know due to the failure of the previous Government to take a census. The estimate we produced last June said that in our belief the total number out of work was in the region of 160,000 and this was based on the best independent estimate which was prepared by members of the staff of the Economic and Social Research Institute.
You still have not answered the question. What is your estimate of the number now?
If you table a question——
The Minister should answer that off the top of his head. You were able to produce an estimate when in Opposition, what is your estimate in Government?
Will Deputy Kelly please resume his seat?
Treating us as though we were a class of infants.
I am not going to let you make a circus out of it.
We are having a lot of unnecessary delay because of supplementary questions which are not relevant. There is nothing in the original question which bears any relationship to the question Deputy Kelly is insisting on asking, in spite of the Chair. This cannot be tolerated all of the time. I am calling on Deputy Mitchell.
One of the questions asks for details of the Minister's plan to reduce unemployment in 1978. Surely I am entitled, therefore, to ask how many people are unemployed without being lectured by you or the Minister.
This is inexcusable on the part of a Deputy who is au fait with Standing Orders. This has nothing to do with the question or to the answer given. The Minister need not supply that information.
We have never claimed we would end unemployment this year. We pointed out that it will take many years. It does not matter how many jobs we create this year, all it will do is to reduce unemployment. Therefore it is useless to get into a statistical dogfight about whether it is 150,000——
The Minister himself nine months ago——
I say for the fourth time that if Deputy Kelly does not obey the Chair I will have to ask him to leave the House. Supplementary questions are asked with the permission of the Chair and not by ignoring the Chair. If we are to proceed in an orderly manner there will have to be an end to this. I will not tolerate it.
Was the Chair referring to the end of unemployment? That is very important. The Minister referred to the ending of discrimination against women. Does that apply to well-heeled articulate women——
Save that supplementary for questions to the Department of Labour.
4.
asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development the numbers of unemployed on the live register on 1 July 1977 and on 30 December 1977; and the measures he is taking to redress the overall unemployment situation.
The actual numbers on the live register on 1 July 1977 and 30 December 1977 were 109,338 and 111,763 respectively.
When seasonally adjusted, the underlying trend in unemployment, as reflected in these live register figures, showed a decline in the range 4,500 to 6,300. Economic indicators suggest that total new jobs created in 1977 could have been in the region of 20,000. This estimate is tentative. When offset by the decline in agricultural numbers and by redundancies in the non-agricultural sector, the net employment outturn likely to emerge should support the trend indicated by the deseasonalised data.
The Government's strategy for tackling the overall unemployment problem has been set out in its pre-election manifesto and in the recent White Paper National Development 1977-1980.
It is accepted that, in addition to the measures being currently considered or in the course of implementation, new policies will have to be formulated if we are to overcome the existing and potential unemployment problem in the years ahead. My Department, in consultation with other Departments, are at present formulating a statement of these policy aims and possible lines of action. During the first half of 1978 the results will be published in the form of a Green Paper so as to provide a basis for discussion with the social partners and to promote the maximum understanding and support for the policy measures to be taken. Subsequent to these discussions and by the autumn of 1978, a comprehensive planning paper will be published.
Can the Minister say how he can reconcile the figures he has given for July and December 1977 with the pre-election promise to reduce unemployment by 5,000 in 1977?
We did. I have pointed out that on the best estimates on additional numbers at work the figure is 5,180. That is a reduction in the numbers out of work but not in the numbers on the live register. We are now getting back to the debate we had earlier when I said my understanding is that the Opposition, because the relevant paper was prepared by an adviser to the former Minister for Foreign Affairs setting out the relationship between movements in the numbers in the live register and total numbers out of work——
The Minister may be ignorant of this because he was not here during the term of the previous Government, but can he tell me why during the term of the Coalition Government Fianna Fáil always used the live register as the guideline, the yardstick, the barometer in regard to unemployment? Why is the Minister not now applying the same criterion?
I have never suggested that we are not using the movement in the live register as a barometer or a guideline. What I am objecting to is the attempt to say that there is a precise numerical relationship between movements in the live register and movements in the numbers out of work. The reason why so many people use the live register is because it is issued weekly.
It is vital for the House to know whether it is the Minister's settled opinion that he will continue to assess the level of unemployment on the figures in the live register. The register has served that purpose up to now and if it is not to do so in the future can the Minister tell the House of the other method of assessment he proposes to use in relation to unemployment? Otherwise the House will continue in the unsatisfactory situation of having the Minister denying that there is any relevance in the live register——
I did not deny there is any relevance. I said I accept that the live register can be used as an indicator or a guide to movements in the numbers out of work. The specific denial I have made is of the suggestion that there is a precise relationship. My understanding is that the previous Government had become aware that the live register was an inadequate indicator of the total numbers out of work. If any former member of that Government likes to deny that, I should like to get it on the record of the House. Of course the live register is frequently quoted because it is available on a weekly basis. The only way in which we can get reasonably accurate indicators of the total numbers out of work on an occasional basis is from the special labour force surveys conducted on behalf of the EEC, taken every two years —one was taken last year and another will be taken next year. The only ultimate accurate crosscheck we have is between that survey and a census of the population, and let us not go into that for the moment.
May I point out to the Minister——
The Deputy will ask a question.
May I ask the Minister if he regards the provision of extra jobs as having the same effect as a reduction in unemployment? In page six of the Fianna Fáil manifesto it is stated that there would be a reduction in unemployment of 5,000 in 1977.
That is correct.
It is not the same thing to create 5,000 new jobs as to reduce unemployment by 5,000.
I have already answered that.