asked the Taoiseach if he will quantify his statement, that job-targets in 1978 would be a few thousand short, made to a student meeting in UCD on 18 October 1978; and if he is correctly reported as attributing the failure to achieve Government job targets to high redundancy in industry.

On a point of order——

Surely a point of order cannot arise at this stage?

I just wanted to have a written reply to a question and I should like to raise a matter on the Adjournment.

The Deputy may not raise it at this time.

I can raise it at any time.

I am trying to point out to the Deputy that he can raise it on the Order of Business.

I am looking for a written reply to a question.

The Deputy may raise it on the Order of Business.

I do not mean any discourtesy to the Taoiseach and I am not trying to hold matters up, but the normal practice has been for a Deputy to give notice at the time of his intention to raise a matter. I take it you are not suggesting that a Deputy may not do that?

The Deputy was trying to raise another matter.

I was trying to say that I wanted to get a written reply to Question No. 160 and that I wanted to raise a matter on the Adjournment.

These matters may be raised at the end of questions.

We might do very well today and reach that question.

Will the Ceann Comhairle not accede to my request?

The Taoiseach.

As the Deputy will be aware the official measurement of employment is based on a mid-April estimate so that a firm estimate of the employment increase by end 1978 cannot be made until the mid-April 1979 figures are available. However, taking the trend in industrial employment combined with the impact of the Government's special job creation programme, the 1978 target could be exceeded if the present rate of redundancy diminishes. If, however, redundancies continue at their present level for the remainder of the year, there could be a shortfall in the range 2,000-3,000 from the 1978 target of 20,000. This possible outturn suggests that gross employment increases in 1978 will be in the region of 35,000.

It is correct that, in the address referred to, I identified the continuing high incidence of redundancy as a major factor contributing to the expected shortfall.

Would the Taoiseach indicate which set of redundancy figures he was referring to in his remarks to the student body in UCD? To my knowledge there are not any official figures for redundancies for this period. The likelihood would appear to be, with the continued outlook for growth in industry, that redundancies are falling this year as compared with last year.

I cannot refer to any statistics because, as I have indicated, these figures will not emerge until the end of April and there would be no point in talking about figures as of last April. However, the qualified redundancy figures are expected to be of the order of about 10,000.

There would be fewer than last year?

It is to be hoped so.

Would it not be a fair description of the Taoiseach's statement to the student body, admittedly in political circumstances——

I had a full house.

Like myself.

I do not wonder that the Taoiseach had a full house with the fairy tales he was telling them. Would the Taoiseach agree that it is a fair description of his remarks there that they were an example of buck passing? Would it not have been fairer if in deference to his young hearers he had identified that arm of Government policy which has been responsible for not meeting the targets set out in the manifesto, an admission made recently by his colleague, the Minister for Economic Planning and Development?

I made no such admission.

I should like to know first of all whether the source of the information the Taoiseach has given the House is the Central Statistics Office, which alone is responsible for authoritative and unbiased figures of this kind, and, secondly, whether he could indicate the reasons for redundancies being so much higher than the Government had expected.

There are many reasons. First of all, I wish to point out that the CSO is one of the sources to which I would apply for information—there are other sources as well. There are the Government services, for example, the Department of Economic Planning and Development. There are many reasons to which one could attribute redundancies. For example, there is the high incidence of strikes and the uncertain wage demands——

Surely the Taoiseach is not blaming industrial relations——

The high incidence of strikes is one of the reasons——

May I ask the Taoiseach——

Deputy B. Desmond rose.

Is it possible for the Taoiseach to answer questions? The Deputies can ask questions afterwards. I have been saying that because there is a high incidence of strikes, and I do not think anybody can deny that there is, and because of certain apprehensions felt in some industries, some industries have not expanded as they would otherwise have done, and indeed there are some industries which have either closed or withdrawn from the scene, and these are included in a combination of many factors which contribute to the number of redundancies.

The Taoiseach has not answered my question whether the figures have come from the CSO or not. I suggest he was evading the matter when he said in his reply that he had asked the CSO for information.

I have been trying to say that the CSO cannot give me firm figures until the April statistics have been published.

They are political figures then, because the redundancy figures are available in the Department of Labour on a monthly basis. Would it not have been better for all concerned if we could have been given the official figure on redundancies supplied publicly rather than the figures available for last December? At the meeting the Taoiseach appeared to be attributing to the figures that were not publicly available——

The Deputy asked me to quantify these figures and I could not quantify the figures on which the redundancies are based, viz. on qualified redundancy figures alone. The Deputy is aware that there are some redundancies of people who are not qualified for redundancy payments. I cannot go further than I have done in the answer. answer.

Is the Taoiseach aware that the projected figure he has given of 10,000 qualified redundancies would indicate there will be something like 12,000 notified redundancies and that this figure will be twice that indicated by his fellow Minister when he projected not more than 5,000 redundancies in 1978?

I said 7,000.

The Taoiseach referred to the high level of strikes. Is he telling the House that the figure for man days lost through strikes this year is much greater than last year? That is what the Minister for Labour told me in a written reply.

I am not talking about man days lost through strikes.

Is the Taoiseach still striking to the statement in the manifesto that there would be a 20,000 reduction in unemployment, plus 5,000 in 1977?

I said that the 20,000 figure for job creation is on, certainly.

What about the reduction of unemployment?

Would the Taoiseach agree, seeing that the Government's policy with regard to job creation will fail, that it is in the national interest for him to review the approach he set out in June 1977 and utilise the full resources of the nation by bringing the public sector into the job creation area?

That is a separate question.

The Government's target and programme of job creation has not failed and will not fail.

Does the Taoiseach still accept the commitment given in the manifesto that the live register would be reduced by 20,000 to 25,000?

The Deputy should quote the full reference.

Would the Taoiseach agree that part of the difficulty here is that there is no measurement for employment and that the only measurement we have is for unemployment?

No.