asked the Minister for Finance if the Government have a precise target for new jobs in 1984; if so, the target; and the number of these jobs that are proposed for the manufacturing industry.

It is not possible to formulate a precise target for new jobs in 1984 because of the uncertainty regarding the pace of international recovery and its likely impact on the domestic economy. Even with favourable external developments, the extent to which employment can be expanded to absorb the labour force increase and reduce unemployment will depend on the success of efforts to improve competitiveness and expand productive investment.

Is the Minister seriously telling the House that because of the uncertainty, as he called it, in the international climate — which, incidently is improving — it is not possible for the Government to set precise targets for this year? Is he seriously saying we have to wait until all this happens before we get precise targets? In view of the Taoiseach's statement in the House a few moments ago that the December and January figures have shown a sharp increase in the level of unemployment, how can the Minister reconcile that statement with his own statement on budget day, less than two weeks ago that the unemployment trend has already improved? Are the Government communicating at all?

If the Deputy is looking for reasons to parse and analyse statments in the hope of finding an inconsistency I do not intend to assist him in doing that. I have no difficulty whatsoever in reconciling what I have just said with the Taoiseach's statement earlier this afternoon and my own statement on budget day. I said in reply to this question that we cannot formulate a precise target for new jobs in 1984 because we do not know what the total effect of the international recovery is likely to be on our domestic economy, nor can we forecast at this point the effect of improving competitiveness and productive investment. I ask the House not to be led into the very simple and apparently attractive process of saying that in this year we will set out to create whatever number of new jobs it is felt desirable that we should create. We have had efforts like that in the past. They have not worked out because there is no way a Government, or a sector, or a firm, can give a guarantee at the beginning of the year on how many jobs they will be able to create or maintain for the remainder of the year. I am bound to say questions of that kind miss the point of the total business of planning.

The country would be very surprised if we were to get a guarantee from the Government as to the number of jobs. Does the Minister not think that the public, particularly the unemployed, are entitled to expect that there will at least be a target? Is the Minister not aware that the IDA seem to have a target of 1,000 jobs in manufacturing industry this year? If that is their target, will the Minister not acknowledge that it is not in any way adequate to meet the continuing increase in unemployment, particularly among young people? Every month the Government say that competitiveness is the only answer but surely lack of competitiveness cannot be charged against the 67,633 young people recorded as being unemployed, never mind those young people whose names do not appear because they have never had a job. Can they be accused of undermining the potential for employment through lack of competitiveness when they do not even have jobs? Will the Minister not wake up to the reality that we must have a plan?

The Deputy had what was called a plan and he turned his back on it. As far as planning is concerned he has nothing more to say.

This is out of order.

In the minds of everybody except the Minister, this matter has become——

If the Deputy wishes, he may have the opportunity to speak later this evening for 30 or 40 minutes on this matter.

The Minister has had five days' notice of this question and he has also had plenty of notice of the growing crisis. Is he seriously telling us that the Government have no plan or target for this year?

No.

It is no wonder there is such hopelessness. Would the Minister not consider extending the tax relief for investment in manufacturing industry? Would he not consider extending it to new jobs generally in the service sector or any other sector, considering that manufacturing industry will at best produce only one out of every five jobs required? Would he not consider it as a measure of the Government's signpost——

This question is not about a policy for jobs. It is really a statistical question.

I am not concerned just about statistics. I am concerned about the human problem.

The Deputy asked for a target and he has been told there is no target.

Would the Minister consider extending his budget proposal to areas other than manufacturing industry?

In reply to such questions as I have detected in the long speech made by the Deputy——

Do not be provocative.

I will not. If we were to arrest the growth in unemployment we would need to create about 20,000 new jobs net per annum. The way to create anything like that number of new jobs is to make goods and services produced here more competitive. If the Deputy regards that as cant, that is his affair. He was the one who first talked about cant. It is the fact that we do not have that competitive edge which has resulted in the present level of unemployment and if the Deputy seriously wants to make the case here or elsewhere that our level of competitiveness does not matter and is not what determines the level of unemployment, then he is welcome to it and the best of luck to him. He will be just as far out of touch with reality as he has been up to now.

I want to correct the record. I did not and could not say that competitiveness is not a very important factor. What I have called cant is the statement by the Government that it is the only factor. There is a great distinction and the Minister will not misrepresent me in this. Competitiveness is vitally important but it is not the only factor. Is the Minister not prepared to acknowledge that in order to deal with potential employment there must be a plan for the development of our national resources?

The Deputy is having a discussion.

Are the Government setting themselves against the need for a comprehensive plan for employment generation, for dealing with national resources, new technology, investment in industry other than manufacturing industry and the varied aspects of agricultural development? Is the Minister saying that this is not important in terms of employment generation or is the only factor improved competitiveness?

The Deputy knows very well that the Government are not saying anything of the kind and he was involved in questioning the Taoiseach a short time ago about the process of planning on which we are about to embark.

About to embark. That is a terrible admission.

I can assure the Deputy that when the Government publish a plan, which will be rather better thought out than the kinds of structures the Deputy seems to have in mind, we will not abandon it two months after publication.

There is no hope there. That is very poor.