asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if he will state, in terms of simple ratio rather than a classified tabular statement, the proportion borne by wealth-producing to non-wealth producing jobs among the jobs which the Government would claim to have created by direct measures since its election.

In referring to direct measures, the Deputy has in mind, I assume, the Government's special programme for the creation of 20,000 jobs. These jobs are being provided by increases in public service numbers, building and construction projects and youth employment schemes and the target figure of 20,000 will be achieved by the end of the year. It is not possible to classify jobs on the creation of wealth criteria.

Are we really to take it that a Minister for Economic Planning and Development, with an academic background to sustain his post, does not know the difference between a wealth-producing and a non-wealth producing job?

This is argument.

Does he accept that a nurse in a health board is in exactly the same position as someone on a building site or working in a factory?

Is the Deputy saying they are not?

Of course they are not.

I refuse to give an answer in the terms sought by the Deputy because I fear that if I did I would be accused of further misleading or confusing him. I reject totally the implication in the question that people employed in the public sector, in areas such as health and education, are in some sense unproductive. On the contrary, I can go back to the work I did more than 15 years ago to make the point that some of these activities are among the most productive in society. If the Deputy will supply a list of the occupations which he regards as wealth-producing and those which he regards as non-productive, I will see if I can have a reply arranged in a form that will be suitable for him.

Am I to take it that the Minister regards a question of this kind as meaningless—have I asked a meaningless question?

Yes.

This is putting people behind desks. Not a blade of grass is growing as a result, or a matchbox being made. The wealth the Minister is producing cannot be sold.

The same old fashioned economics.

What about all these fabulous jobs that were to be created? How many of them are six-week jobs or three-month jobs?

That is not a question. It is purely argumentative.

What is the Minister's definition of a job? Is it a 52-week year job?

I cannot answer in these terms. This would imply that all the people concerned would have to be employed on 1 January. If somebody is employed on 1 December he would be employed for only four weeks this year. Does that mean it is a non-job?

Wealth producing——

Will Deputy Mitchell allow Question Time to be proceeded with?

The only way to get on in this House is to be disorderly. You are being disorderly yourself, Sir.

The Deputy has accused the Chair of being disorderly. Will he withdraw that remark?

If there is a mutual withdrawal.

The Deputy will withdraw it without qualification. Is he withdrawing it?

Yes.