I thought I had asked a specific question to which a specific answer should be given. The Minister has used flowery language in the most indefinite kind of way and in what he has said has evaded the issues. What is the present position in relation to the targets set, a very simple question?

Not if one is Minister for Finance.

For the Deputy's information, the 1979 White Paper did not specify any targets for registered unemployment at the end of 1981. Of course this was because of the uncertainty surrounding the level of labour force increase likely to take place over the period which is very relevant and has been proved by subsequent figures. There is not a 1-for-1 relationship between increases in the level of employment and reductions in the numbers registered as unemployed.

Can the Minister tell the House whether or not there is an improvement in the position, whether or not the targets were reached, or is the Minister saying no targets were set because they could not be set?

The Minister is saying that the targets for registered unemployment were not met mainly because of the uncertainty surrounding the level of the labour force. Regarding the other part of the question asked by the Deputy, I think it is true to say that the position — and we cannot bury our heads in the sand in this respect — between 1979 and 1981 deteriorated substantially internationally. Oil prices increased at an unprecedented rate which surely was bound to have some effect on an economy as open as ours.

It was not an unprecedented rate.

Yes it was.

Deputy Cluskey.

Not for 1974-75.

There was absolutely no comparison. Let me get the record straight, I am sorry, but in money terms the price of imported oil doubled from 1978 to 1980 and the 1980 figure was approximately £755 million.

It is not the same.

Deputy Cluskey.

The Minister has answered five questions together. In relation to Question No. 24 might I ask him if he is attributing totally to the oil increases the miscalculation of the number of unemployed, which was predicted to be 23,000 in the current year, whereas that figure now stands at 127,000?

I have pointed out the economic difficulties in the intervening period. I want to point out also that the increase in our labour force in the three years ended February 1980 was 80,000, something we were not aware of——

The Government were not aware of that?

The Deputy may remember that a census was not taken in a particular year of a certain administration for expediency reasons. The Deputy was a junior Cabinet member of the administration that took that decision, so memories can be somewhat short.

Is the Minister saying that they made no estimation at all of any increase whatever in the labour force when making those predictions of 23,000 unemployed now, rather than the 127,000 now actually obtaining?

I said there were a number of factors.

Never mind the number, I am asking specifically did the Government make no provision at all for any increase whatsoever in the labour force when they were writing this fairytale?

Yes.

What number?

I would not have that number for the Deputy off the top of my head. Suffice it for me to say — and the Deputy must be aware of this — that the figures were much higher than were anticipated prior to that date. For instance, let me give the Deputy another figure which may be of interest to him——

Would the Minister give me the one for which I asked?

Just a moment, am I not entitled to answer——

A Cheann Comhairle——

——or does Deputy Cluskey not want the truth?

Before the Minister displays his over-generosity in giving figures for which I have not asked, would he give me the figure for which I have asked?

I am sorry, Deputy, the Minister has the right to reply and, as I have said here on many occasions, I am not responsible for Ministers' replies.

Would the Minister ever think of exercising that right because he has not so far?

On a point of order, is the Minister in order in making a speech on a different subject as distinct from replying to the question asked?

I have no responsibility whatsoever for the Minister's replies.

But he is not entitled to make speeches, is that not so?

I have one supplementary question at least on each of my questions and I am still on the first one.

Deputy FitzGerald, as usual, is miles out on any assumption he makes. I was not making any comment on an unrelated subject. As a matter of fact, I was trying to answer Deputy Cluskey's question. The Deputy asked me if we had taken into consideration figures of——

Of any increase at all?

—— a labour force increase.

What was it?

Obviously we had to go on statistics available to us. One very relevant statistic available to us was that in the four-year period from 1973 to 1977 the increase in the labour force was 14,000. Therefore it is understandable that we would not have picked up the 80,000 increase in the three-year period from 1977 to 1980.

Did the Government make any estimation whatsoever?

That should answer the Deputy's question.