asked the Minister for Economic Planning and Development if he intends to revise the Government's employment target for the current year.

The Government's White Paper "Programme for National Development 1978-1981", published last January, adopted as an employment target for 1979 a reduction of 25,000 in the numbers out of work. Since then the outlook for the economy has deteriorated because of domestic developments and the slowing down of world trade stemming in particular from scarcity in the supply and rises in the price of oil. In the light of these developments it would be unrealistic to retain the employment target set out in the White Paper for this year.

It is not possible to state at this stage what revision in the White Paper figure will be necessary as information on the development of employment has been held up by the postal dispute. I can say, however, that job creation in the public sector has not advanced as rapidly as expected again because of the postal difficulties and in other areas slower growth generally is having an adverse effect on employment.

When will the Minister be in a position to state a revised estimate for the end-of-the-year figure?

Obviously as soon as some up-to-date, accurate information——

Will it be before the end of the year?

Yes, certainly the Deputy will have the statement at the latest by early autumn.

The Minister has painted a very depressing picture. Will it be fleshed out in more detail in the Green Paper that he proposes to publish in the autumn?

Yes. The picture is not necessarily depressing. Even if the targets are reduced—as it is indicated they will be; the question is to what extent—even the lower figure for increased employment this year will constitute a very substantial increase in numbers in employment. For instance, certainly it will exceed the increase in employment in any previous year in our history with the possible exception of last year.

Am I right in reading the import of the Minister's reply as being that whatever revisions of the employment targets may have to be undertaken will be due solely to factors over which the Government have no control?

No, I did not say that. I referred to domestic factors also.

That is the Government.

How much of it will be due to the Government's fault?

Deputy FitzGerald was saying, "That is the Government". The Government have never said that this is the sole domestic factor. On the contrary, in this House on previous occasions I have pointed out, as set out in the White Paper and elsewhere, that a number of preconditions had to be satisfied if we were to achieve the very ambitious targets set out in the White Paper. Part of those essential preconditions was a satisfactory climate in industrial relations. I have made no bones of the fact that it is totally unrealistic to imagine that very ambitious targets can be achieved and very ambitious results attained if we are to suffer the damage and disruption of major strikes or other major interruptions of output. At this juncture it is not constructive to try to apportion blame as between parties, which would be necessary in order to take the point as to how much is to be attributed to the Government or to any other grouping.

The blame can be avoided on this side of the House.

I would have thought that Deputies on that side of the House also would see the good sense of the point I am trying to make.

Did the Minister say that the aim was a reduction in unemployment of 25,000? If he said that did that mean a reduction in the live register of 25,000?

If Deputy Mitchell had been here a few minutes ago he would know that that item was debated and we made it clear that we were talking about the target of 25,000 increase in employment.

No. The Minister has made it clear that it was the numbers out of work.

I made it clear that it was increases in employment which could be equated with numbers out of work but not with numbers on the live register. If Deputy FitzGerald wishes to help his own Deputy he should be more helpful to him. So far I am doing a better job in that regard.

I am glad to hear that the Minister is doing a good job somewhere.

I will pass on to the next question.

Would the Minister please re-read that part of his reply in which he said a reduction of 25,000 in numbers out of work? Did the Minister intend to mislead the Dáil into believing that that meant a reduction in the numbers on the live register?

It did not mean a reduction in the numbers on the live register.

It does not?

No.

How are we to measure his promises, figures and pronouncements? What barometer are we to use if the live register is not to be used? How are we to gauge the truth or otherwise of what the Minister says?

By measuring the increase in the numbers at work.

Question No. 23.

This is a three-card trick.

It is not a three-card trick. Is the Deputy disputing that there has been an increase in the numbers at work?

The excuse about numbers leaving the unemployment register and going back onto it again is wearing very thin.

The only people who attempt consistently to indulge in the confusion are on that side of the House in those benches.

Hear, hear.

It is an attempt on their part to distort the picture and to try to convey to the people that nothing substantial has been done in this area.

True.

For the record, there was a record increase in employment last year. Ignore statistics about anything else.

Let the Minister produce the evidence.

And there will be a further substantial increase this year, so that for two years in a row, despite international difficulties, we will see a greater impact made on our unemployment problems than in any previous year since the foundation of the State. That is what interests the people and not games more appropriately played in the groves of academia where I will indulge the Deputy's interest happily on any occasion he cares to name.

Does the Minister accept that for two years he has endeavoured to get off the hook of the reduction in numbers out of work to convert the whole argument to the question of increasing numbers at work——

This is argument.

I refute that.

——and that the live register is as good a measure as any as is shown by the EEC labour survey?

According to Deputy FitzGerald.

The Deputy can have that debate inside or outside this House at any time he cares to choose and I will be there.

The Minister quoted the paper.

Deputies should remember that this is Question Time. It is not a time for debate.

I am not trying to get off the hook.

The Minister did not say reduction in unemployment, he said reduction in numbers out of work.

I will deal with that.

The people will deal with the Minister.

I presume, Sir, that your stricture to Deputies applies to all Deputies in this House. In reply to a supplementary question the Minister stated that "domestic factors" does not necessarily include the Government or is not exclusively the Government.

That is right, there are other people in the country.

Presumably the results that occurred last year do not mean necessarily that people on the Government side can take the credit.

That is right, not wholly and exclusively.

Perhaps that might be put into the record for the next election.

It was written into our manifesto before the election. The crucial thing we were saying then——

The Minister cannot have it both ways.

The Minister should be allowed to answer.

We made it quite clear in our election manifesto, as well as in subsequent documents, that the people have not changed and that circumstances were not changing and what was needed was a change of policy and a change of direction and that, given the right policies and the right leadership, we could do something about our unemployment problems. The evidence is there to show that despite international difficulties and domestic problems we are still achieving much faster progress in this area than was ever previously achieved in the history of the State. That is the vindication of the points we have been making.

The Minister has just announced that he is abandoning his targets.

Question No. 23.

I can accept that the Minister has right-wing policies. I am asking him to demonstrate where the leadership is.

The snide remark about right-wing policies is unworthy of the Deputy and inaccurate. I defy him to show how policies to achieve full employment can be described as right wing and contrast them with the alleged policies of his own party.

23.