asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if he will specify the "unreasonable solutions" to our economic problems advocated by him in a recent speech (details supplied).
5.
Ceisteanna—Questions . Oral Answers . - Job Creation .
4.
asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development how the figure of 7,000 reduction in unemployment, as used by him in a speech on 5 May 1978 (details supplied) was calculated.
6.
asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development the extent to which a recent speech by him to a youth conference in County Clare, and reported in the local press, represents Government policy.
: With the permission of the Ceann Comhairle I propose to take Questions Nos. 4, 5 and 6 together.
The Deputy's questions relate to an address given by me on May 5th to a youth conference on the subject of job creation. The address was not presented as a statement of Government policy but rather as a discussion of our unemployment problem and of possible new approaches to job creation with particular attention to work-sharing and income-sharing. It also dealt with progress on the Government's job creation programme.
In addressing the conference I suggested that there are times when it is unreasonable to be moderate. Half-way measures will achieve little at a time when unemployment still exceeds the 100,000 level. Radical action is needed, and the Government are pressing ahead with it. What we are doing has been well publicised, but if the Deputy wants more information I would refer him in particular to the White Paper on National Development published in January last and to the 1978 Budget statement where detailed strategies for job creation were presented. I would also remind him of the Government's stated intention to publish a Green Paper very shortly in which further options for dealing with unemployment will be put forward for discussion.
As regards the reduction in unemployment, the figure of 7,000 quoted by me is based on movements in the live register. The number on the register, seasonally adjusted, at the end of June last was 112,547; by end-April, 1978 it had fallen to 104,858, a reduction of 7,489 or 7,000 in round figures.
: There are three questions involved here. Would the Minister inform the House if the unreasonable solutions he has quoted include the extension and development of our support for the Japanese car industry, to which he referred in such glowing terms yesterday? Why does he use the live register to measure unemployment outside the House but not inside it?
: I am not sure what the Deputy has in mind in his reference to the Japanese car industry. If he is referring to an informal speech I made yesterday I was talking about the importance of overseas investment in the development of our industry. I was making the point that Japanese investment was a component of that inflow. We expect further overseas investment to make a substantial contribution to the growth of industrial employment in the years ahead. I see nothing wrong with that part of my remarks.
With regard to the live register I was simply using that as an illustration. At no stage have I ever suggested that the live register was not an indicator of movements in unemployment. I have always objected and continue to object to the notion that it is a precise measure of movement in unemployment. I was not giving a detailed or learned discourse on the nature and measure of unemployment statistics. I was talking in general terms to a youth audience. I am very touched at the extent to which Deputies are reading the many articles and statements attributed to me. If the Deputy reads the whole of the report he will see that the general tenor of it was much more concerned with addressing a young audience and making them aware of the nature of their problems and the opportunities open to them in the present climate.
: Would the Minister not agree that his statement yesterday, as reported in page 14 of today's Irish Times, did not refer to Japanese investment in Ireland but to purchases by Irish people of Japanese motor cars? Would he further explain why, in talking to an audience composed of members of his party, he failed to use, in relation to unemployment, the figures which are infinitely more favourable to his Government and which have been devised specially by his Government to allow them to evade their manifesto commitment?
: Which are they?
(Interruptions.)
: Is the Deputy referring to what is in the manifesto?
: We better make sure that the Minister and the Deputy are talking about the same thing.
: I am referring to the assertion of the Minister for Finance that the creation of one new job equals a reduction of employment of one.
: Is the Deputy afraid we will reach our targets?
(Interruptions.)
: Question No. 7.
: May I answer the supplementary question asked?
: Yes, if somebody wishes to hear it. It does not appear by the Deputies' behaviour that they want replies to the supplementaries. It is not good enough behaviour for what we would expect at Question Time. We expect a knowledgeable session.
: On a point of order, you look across at the Labour Party and apparently you look across at Fine Gael and you chastise us for not listening. We had an example a few moments ago of the Minister for Finance shouting across at me about something. I am not sure what it was because I do not know what he said but you did not apparently bring him to order.
: I did. The Deputy should not make such a charge. I even struck the gong to get order and very few paid attention. I am not accepting that as a point of order. I ask the Minister to reply to the last supplementary asked. Let us make some progress.
: I can understand Deputy Cluskey's discomfort.
: Order.
: If the Minister really wants to know what discomfort is will he look around him?
(Interruptions.)
: I regret I cannot comment on the Press report to which the Deputy referred. I have not yet read the morning papers. With regard to the Deputy's reference to why I switched from what would be the most favourable figures I do not see what the Deputy has in mind. I am not in the business of selecting figures which are favourable or unfavourable.
(Cavan-Monaghan): The Minister will be in the business of explaining away figures before long.
: No. With respect it has consistently been the Members on the other side of the House who have sought to drag into every discussion on our employment creating programmes references to the live register and to the relationship between movements in that register and movements in the numbers at work. Our whole concern, as made clear both in the election campaign and in all the discussions since, has been to talk about providing work for our people and not to indulge in silly numbers games.
: Who was it who started the numbers games?
: The Deputy did because, although there is not one single reference in the White Paper to movements in the live register, it has always been people on that side of the House who have attempted to drag in measurements of the live register as apparently measurements of the number of people at work or out of work. I have consistently objected to that measurement. I will continue to do so. If Deputies want to table questions, as was done in the past, dealing with the relationship between the two, I will answer them. If Deputies want a debate on the question of measuring unemployment statistics, Deputies can have it.
: The Minister promised us a debate on the White Paper and we are still waiting for it. The Minister promised it to me here in the House last December. Let us have the debate.
: That is a matter for the Deputy's Whip.
: Could I ask the Minister who was it who first raised the scare about how the real unemployment figure was about 50,000 higher than the live register?
: I did and I am standing over it.
: The Minister's party and he is blaming us now for making the same point and viewing the situation, as we will be doing, in the next election.
: That is the point I made. We knew unemployment last summer was about 160,000 and the basis for that statement was the work of an independent academic economist in an independent research institute. It was not based on any politically motivated work on my part.
: It was good enough to be printed in heavy type by the Minister's party.
: The reason I cannot quote up-to-date adequate estimates of the true numbers out of work is that we do not have them. The Deputy knows that and we know that. We know the true figure of the numbers out of work is substantially in excess of the number quoted in the live register.
: May I ask one final supplementary?
: No. We have had the last 15 minutes devoted to a debate, not to questions. This is ridiculous. I am calling Question No. 7 to the Minister for the Public Service.