asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development the figure for average annual redundancies that has been assumed in the White Paper National Development 1977-80 for the purpose of the estimates of employment needs in the period 1978-1980.

The figure assumed for average annual redundancies in the period 1978-80 is 7,000.

That is the figure for the parameters referred to by the ESRI. Is that where the figure came from?

No. They are our calculations based on the information available to various Government agencies.

Is it 7,000 for each of the three years?

On average, yes.

Would the Minister agree that that figure of 7,000 combined with 4,000 off the land will not allow his 20,000 reduction in unemployment to come about?

I do not accept that at all. It depends on what the gross increase in employment is. If the first 7,000 jobs provided are to meet redundancies and the next 4,000 are to meet the reduction in agriculture, then if we are to have a reduction of 20,000 in the numbers out of work, we add that on, and that brings the tot up to 31,000.

Is the White Paper figure not 25,000 per annum?

We will have this conversation later.

The Deputy is not distinguishing between the gross additional employment, the new jobs created in industry and services and so on, and that against that gross addition we must subtract losses, such as redundancies and reduction in agriculture, thus arriving at a net addition to the numbers at work. It is the net figure which was quoted.

Plus increases in the labour force, is it not?

Yes. That is provided for also—9,000.

I am calling Question No. 19.

The figures do not add up. I have been confused about this since the White Paper was published.

I will be only too willing to answer specific questions tabled.