asked the Minister for Finance the targets set by the Government for the reduction of unemployment in 1977, 1978, and 1979, the actual reduction achieved in each year and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The job targets leading to a reduction in unemployment were set out in the White Paper National Development 1977-1980 published in January 1978. These were 5,000 (for the latter half of 1977, and 20,000 and 25,000 for the calendar years 1978 and 1979 respectively.

The actual outturn for the second half of 1977 is estimated at 4,000 and for the subsequent years 1978 and 1979 the figures are now estimated at 15,000 and 13,000 respectively. The 1979 estimate must be regarded as tentative at this stage. Definitive figures for employment increases in these years must await the results of the 1979 labour force survey and revisions to the earlier labour force surveys on foot of the population changes shown by the 1979 census. These figures are expected to be available in the late autumn.

The reasons for the shortfall from the targets have been set out in the White Paper National Development 1977-1980, Programme for National Development 1978-1981 and Investment and National Development 1979-1983. The main reasons were a rapid increase in wage costs in 1978 which led to a slower than expected expansion in industrial jobs and a greater than expected number of jobs lost through redundancy and, in 1979, higher oil prices and losses in output due to industrial disputes.

Another factor which contributed to the shortfall was a greater than anticipated fall in agricultural employment in 1979.

The total increase of 32,000 in employment in the period as now estimated was an impressive achievement especially when compared with the fall of 15,000 in employment between April 1973 and April 1977.

Is the Minister satisfied that the progress made in the past three years is satisfactory? If 50 per cent of the target has been achieved, is that record satisfactory as far as he is concerned? Are the reasons given as being responsible for the shortfall of nearly 50 per cent in job creation to be found in the Fianna Fáil manifesto, because that is the document to which I referred as setting out the targets on which the Minister got into Government? Is he now admitting 50 per cent of a shortfall?

The Deputy is asking if I am satisfied with the progress and I think I can say yes, very definitely; and I think it will illustrate why when I say that the fall in registered unemployment in Ireland in 1978 and 1979 exceeded that in any other member state in the EEC. This is good reason for being very satisfied in contrast with patterns existing elsewhere when the rise in unemployment here in the mid-seventies exceeded that in any other member state of the European Community. In view of the dramatic change that has occurred the Deputy will see why I have every reason to be satisfied.

May I ask whether it is the case that, allowing for the 30,000 target reduction as the target for 1980, the Government's commitment to date is not in fact a reduction of 60,000 up to April 1980 and whether in view of the increase in unemployment seasonally adjusted in the first four months of this year the actual reduction up to April is 26,500? That being so is it not the case that the Government have met only 44 per cent of their target at this stage?

I do not accept that.

Why not? This year there is to be a 30,000 reduction in unemployment according to the manifesto and so far as we have had a 5,500 increase. Is that not correct?

By any criterion, whether in terms of extra people at work, the drop in registered unemployment or comparisons with any of our partners in what has become a very difficult time, in each of these areas, the percentage change in the annual average registered unemployment here last year and the previous year is something about which we can be rather happy. Any juggling with figures to try to imply otherwise may give a desired result but it will not change the reality.

Missing the target by half may satisfy the Minister, but I was talking about 1980. The present rate of increase in 1980 is about 16,000 per year of an increase in unemployment on an annualised rate while the target was a 30,000 reduction. Is the Minister satisfied with that?

The question does not relate to 1980. That is a separate question.

No, but I would act on the advice of the Chair in view of the fact that there is no question here in relation to 1980.

Run for cover.

The question related to 1977, 1978 and 1979. I directed my replies, direct and supplementary, to those years. The Deputies should recognise that. It was a separate question. If the question were to relate to 1980 the Deputy should put such a question down and I would be happy to deal with it.

The Minister does not want to talk about 1980.

I do not think the Deputy wants to talk about 1975 or 1976.

Whatever about a few thousand here or there, would the Minister accept in view of the fact that the reduction since July 1977 will in any event be well under 30,000—probably 26,000 or 28,000, as Deputy FitzGerald suggests—that roughly half of that increase is attributable to a growth in public sector employment of about 14,000, in other words, jobs created at staggering public expense which has left the Minister without a shilling for development of the kind that is necessary?

The Minister would have left them on the dole.

Would he agree that roughly half of that decrease in unemployment is attributable to reckless expansion of the public service?

This is only a debate.

Would the Minister accept that roughly half that——

No, I do not accept it and I do not agree.

Would the Minister not accept that the figures released by the Department of the Public Service show that since his Government returned to power the non-industrial civil service has grown by 5,500 people; local authorities employment has grown by 2,000 and the health boards by 8,000, which adds up to over 15,000 jobs. They have not gone to the wall and they are not made redundant but they are being paid for through the nose.

We cannot have a debate on how the figures are compiled. I am calling Question No. 11.

That is what we are trying to discover.

Is the Minister satisfied that the achievement of 50 per cent of a political target is satisfactory?

That is the third time that question has been asked.

If I may conclude on that, obviously the Minister is never satisfied when we face situations such as that we face now. We have an achievement of 50 per cent—to put it in those terms—at a time when our partners cannot realise anything like 50 per cent. That, I think, is very satisfactory. If you wish, you can assume that we are isolated from the international reality.

Fianna Fáil did not allow for that in the manifesto.

No, we are saying that our track record——

You are talking about half a loaf.

Where is Minister O'Malley?

I am still on my feet and if we are to continue and if we want to make comparisons, may I say the comparisons nowadays do great credit to this country by comparison with 1975?

In what other EEC country is unemployment now rising as rapidly as in this country in the first four months of the year?

The question did not relate to the first four months of the year, but if the Deputy puts down a question I will deal with it.

May I ask a supplementary question?

No, I am calling Question No. 11.