asked the Minister for Social Welfare the average number on the unemployment register each month for the first five months of this year compared to the monthly average for the year provided for in the Estimates; the total extra cost, over and above the Exchequer provision, if the five monthly average continues for the rest of the year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.
Ceisteanna—Questions. Oral Answers. - Unemployment Statistics.
16.
Deseasonalised figures provide the best basis for comparing levels of the live register for part of the year with full-year projections. The deseasonalised average number on the live register at the end of each of the first five months of this year was:—
|
January |
245,700 |
|
February |
245,800 |
|
March |
245,500 |
|
April |
250,100 |
|
May |
250,600 |
|
Average to May |
247,540 |
The deseasonalised average number over the period January to May 1987 was 247,540 compared with the projected average for the year of 241,000 on which the Revised Published Estimate was framed.
The live register projection for the year has not been revised pending an assessment of the likely impact of the Jobsearch programme and of the Government's programme for national recovery.
As regards cost, it is considered that the 1987 provision for unemployment payments will be adequate even in the event of some slippage in the live register projection, due to changes in the structure of the Live Register.
The Minister has told us that the figures for the first five months of the year means that unemployment is running at 6,540 above projection. He also says that he can meet the payments for these out of the estimates provision. Can the Minister tell us how he can perform that three card trick? Would he not accept that there is not adequate provision in the Estimates and they are phoney?
This is the information which is supplied to me by the experts who calculate these figures, year in year out. The Deputy may not have heard the second part of my reply which related to the cost. It considered that the 1987 provision for unemployment payments will be adequate even in the event of some slippage in the live register projection, due to changes in the structure of the live register. The changes in the structure of the live register are the cost per head which is related more to such factors as the number of single people as against the number of married people and the number of dependants involved.
Is it not a fact that the Government's claims of priority for employment are now hollow given that unemployment is now running at 6,540 per month over that provided for in their Estimates when excessive claims were made about what they were going to do about unemployment? Is it not also true that the net effect of what the Minister said is that those on unemployment will be getting less money?
It is not. The individuals will still get the same rate of unemployment payment. As the Deputy will realise they will get an increase from July instead of from November. There are changes in the structure of the register and these relate particularly to the number of single people claiming, without dependants, as distinct from the estimated numbers based on higher numbers of families with dependants which obviously will involve more cost. This is one of the structural factors. That is the reality in relation to the cost and expenditure element.
The Minister will forgive me for being sceptical. When the end of year figures come out we will see if the Minister has misled the House. What we do know is that despite the hunting of people off the Jobsearch programme for which the Minister has given figures, there are still 6,540 more people unemployed per month than has been provided for in the estimates which is a grossly high figure. Perhaps the Minister would tell me whether he will now accept that the Government's employment policies are disastrous and whether he would now stop forcing people on to the unemployment register in the education and health spheres.
The Deputy is referring to the figures for the first five months of the year which are particularly influenced by the policies of the previous Government. The present Government's plan for a national recovery could not have a major effect on the register until this time forward. Naturally that is an element which will have to be taken into consideration in any estimation of the figures from here forward. I am giving the Deputy the factual position as determined by the experts at this point in time. It is not my assumption but the expert assumption. The position later in the year will be subject to review.
I want to deal with the Deputy's other question, No. 17, within the prescribed time.
Could I have one final supplementary on this very important question? Does the Minister not recall or agree that the Taoiseach who is now sitting beside him at the outset of this Government promised an onslaught on unemployment, and an immediate reduction in the unemployment figures? Would he not further agree that since this Government came into power unemloyment figures have gone up by over 5,000 at a time of the year when they normally fall and that the Government's employment policies are now in ruins?
I would not agree. The Deputy will have to wait a little longer to see the effects of the programme for national recovery. To go back to his Deputy's initial question, the factual position is that the experts involved say, and the Deputy, and I as Minister, must bear in mind what they say, that at this time, after five months, they see no reason for revising the Estimate.
Question No. 17.
In a few minutes we will have the Deputy talking about how brilliant the——