asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development (a) the total of registered unemployment at the latest date for which figures are available, with the figures for the corresponding date in 1977; and (b) his calculation as to what proportions of the year-on-year improvement which these figures disclose are accounted for respectively by emigration, by the upturn in the world economy, and by Government measures introduced since 5 July 1977.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Figures.
44.
The latest date for which live register figures are available is 28 April 1978. The number on the live register at that date was 106,730, a decline of 6,854 on the corresponding date in 1977, when the figure was 113,584.
It is not possible to apportion this improvement among the various factors mentioned by the Deputy for a variety of reasons, but the broad influence of these factors would appear to be as set out below.
The impact of international trade does not appear to have had any beneficial effect—in fact the Deputy's reference to an upturn in the world economy is misleading since there has been a marked slackening off in the rate of recovery internationally in the past 12 months.
In the case of recent net emigration it is not possible to give a clear picture of its impact since there are no details available of the gross flows, the age or other characteristics of migrants. However, taking an earlier period, 1971-75 —when net immigration apparently occurred—there was still a substantial outflow of young people in the 20-29 age group. The apparent net emigration of both 1976 and 1977 could have been the result more of a slackening off in the number of immigrants rather than a significant rise in the number of emigrants in this 20-29 age group. In any event, it is most unlikely that the extent of any increase in the net outward movement would have been sufficient to prevent a further increase in the numbers unemployed, having regard to the rapid growth in the number of young people entering the labour force annually.
It is reasonable, therefore, to conclude that the fall in the numbers on the live register is due to a rise in the number of people at work. It is estimated that total employment increased by 14,000 over the last 12 months. One contribution to this increase was the special job-creation programme initiated by the Government last autumn. A second major contribution has come from industrial expansion, both in the form of new industries commencing production and growth of established enterprises.
Is the House to take it from what the Minister said that of the three elements I mentioned in my question we can disregard the influence of the upturn in the world economy? I assert there has been an upturn, despite the slackening of the last four months mentioned by the Minister, which was already visible at the end of 1976. Are we to take it that the influence of that upturn and of emigration which the Minister admits is taking place are negligible and that this improvement in the year-to-year figure, small and inconsiderable though it is, is entirely due to the methods introduced by the Government?
The Deputy must not have been listening to my reply.
I was listening as hard as I could but that is the sense that came across to me.
I said that it was reasonable to conclude that the fall in the numbers on the live register was due to a rise in the number of people at work. I went on to say that one contribution to that increase was the Government's job-creation programme. I listed as a second major contribution the growth in employment both in new industries and from the expansion of existing firms.
I had already made the point that there had been no international recovery over the last 12 months that had taken place in the period prior to that and I had said that in the case of emigration that we did not really know because we do not have detailed figures on the characteristics of migrants.
Let us take the new factories and the expansion of the existing ones. The Minister is hardly telling us that an expansion in employment has resulted from the opening of factories or the expansion of factories which has resulted from Government measures since 5 July last. Any expansions there surely have their origins lying a good deal further back than that.
Deputy Cluskey wishes to ask a supplementary. It will be the last supplementary.
I had said that the contribution was from the Government programme.
(Interruptions.)
Would the Minister agree that it is somewhat contradictory to say that he is not sure what the figures for emigration are when on an RTE radio programme two or three days ago he accepted that the figure was approximately 10,000?
I accepted an estimate based on net passenger movement. I am not disputing that. I said in my reply that we do not have details of the age or other characteristics of these migrants, either emigrants or immigrants. Therefore we do not know the precise extent of net emigration. Even if it was 10,000, we cannot say that these were people who otherwise would have been seeking work. We do not know if they were members of the labour force. It is a fair surmise.
The remaining questions will appear on next Tuesday's Order Paper.
It is unlikely that the emigrants would be all people not members of the labour force, but it is very likely that a substantial proportion of them would be people who having failed to get jobs here, having been on the register lists for months if not years, had decided to go.
Question Time is over.
(Interruptions.)
We are into injury time now.
(Interruptions.)
Is the Chair agreeable to the Minister's suggestion that he will continue with supplementaries next Tuesday?
I cannot give that assurance.
The Minister has suggested that he would like to continue the supplementaries on Tuesday.
There is no precedent for asking supplementaries a week after the question has been answered.
Would the Chair do the big thing and leave this question on the Order Paper for further supplementaries on Tuesday?
No, it was fully dealt with. I want to get on with the business. Has Deputy Cluskey any question other than that?
There are a lot of questions on the Order Paper.
Would the Minister agree that the net passenger movement is a fairly widely accepted accurate way of estimating the number of people who have emigrated over a given period?
It is a widely accepted way of estimating emigration between census periods but it is not widely accepted that it is accurate.