Jim Mitchell
Ceist:8 Mr. J. Mitchell asked the Taoiseach if it is now his intention to appoint a Minister for Employment.
Ceisteanna — Questions. Oral Answers (Resumed). - Employment Creation Responsibility.
As I indicated to the House in reply to a parliamentary question on 12 March 1991, each member of the Government is responsible for employment creation in respect of the sectors for which he or she has departmental responsibility. I do not intend to appoint a specific Minister for that task.
Is the Taoiseach aware that in other member states of the EC there are Ministers for Employment, specifically in the United Kingdom? Would the Taoiseach not accept that the June figures for unemployment due to be published this Friday will be the worst figures ever for June, that the May figures were the worst figures ever for May, the March figures were the worst figures ever for March and that the April figures were the worst of any month ever, and that it is a disgrace that we do not have a Minister for Employment?
No, I do not accept that at all.
Even the last remark?
I believe that our system is best for tackling this problem. The task of creating employment as such rests firmly on the Government as a whole with specific Ministers having particular responsibility for employment creation in their areas and every Minister having an obligation in his or her sector to see what they can do to create employment or assist economic development.
In my experience over the past four years, if one puts down a question on the impact of social welfare on employment no one Minister can answer the question. The Minister for Labour has acknowledged that he cannot answer questions on the impact of social welfare on employment, the impact of the differential rent system on take-home pay or the impact of medical cards on take-home pay. Would the Taoiseach not accept that there is a need for one Minister for Employment, given our record in unemployment, with overall responsibility for co-ordinating the relationship between the take-home pay of people at work and what they would get on social welfare?
That matter is examined constantly by Government and by a number of expert organisations. There is no dearth of studies in that regard. The creation of an additional supernumerary Ministry of that kind would not be helpful and it could just lead to bureaucratic and other delays.
Let us now deal with Priority Questions.
On that question——
It must be brief.
Would the Taoiseach not agree that Cabinet procedural instructions with regard to the circulation of memoranda for decisions by Government operates in such a way that there is no one Department that ever takes an overview on the impact on employment of any proposals being considered by the Government and that for that reason alone a Minister for Employment is needed?
No. The right way to do it is for the Government to be active in the whole question of employment creation across the board. Perhaps equally important, the Government should ensure that no activity in Government in any area prohibits the creation of employment.
Given that 30.2 per cent of our workforce, having regard to our emigration and unemployment figures, have failed to find jobs at home in the past four years, is the Taoiseach serious in saying that there is no need for a Minister and a Department of Employment?
The Deputy is engaging in a purely academic exercise. We are dealing with the administration of Government and the formulation and implementation of policies. The system we have is the best suited to do that.
It is not.
In other countries they have different systems——
And lower unemployment.
If the Deputy is so madly keen and enthusiastic about this, I wonder why the Government of which he was a member did not specifically create a Minister for Employment.
Unemployment was half what it is now and emigration was less than half. The Government are spending hundreds of millions of pounds causing unemployment, and it is no wonder, when we have no Minister for Employment.
On a point of order, I submitted a question to the Chair's office with regard to the present position in Nicaragua and so far I have not received any communication as to why that question did not appear on the Order Paper. Can I have an assurance that there will be a reason other than the one given to me verbally, that it was a repeat of a question that had been placed in March?
I will look into the matter and communicate with the Deputy. The questions upon which we are about to embark are Priority Questions for which 15 minutes only is provided for in Standing Orders of the House. I seek the co-operation of all concerned so that we may dispose of the questions before us within the presecribed time.