asked the Minister for Finance if he estimates that unemployment will exceed 225,000 in 1984; and the cost to the State of every 1,000 persons becoming unemployed in 1984.

I am advised officially that the estimate for the average number likely to be on the live register in 1984 is approximately 225,000.

In regard to the second part of the question, I assume that the Deputy is referring to the average cost of social welfare unemployment payments made by the State in respect of every 1,000 persons who register as unemployed in 1984. On the basis of the published estimates for the Public Service, the estimated cost in question is £2.47 million.

On the basis of the figures released in the last few days showing an increase in one month of over 7,000 unemployed does the Minister still hold to his budget figure of 225,000 unemployed? Is that still the official estimate after the publication of the dramatic figures in the last few days?

Yes. The figure of 225,000 is the expected level of the average number on the live register through 1984.

Does that mean in effect that before these figures are announced the Minister expected the serious result that would emerge from them?

No. The results that we have seen for the current month are within the envelope of the factors that we took into account in making that provision.

How can the Minister explain that? At the time of the budget when the average figures were projected for the year the Minister stated that there was already a significant downward trend in unemployment. Within three weeks the Government acknowledge that the latest figure is disturbing. Is it not clear on that basis that the figure of 225,000, the average projected from official sources as the Minister said at budget time, is much less than what the average will be in view of what the Government themselves have now acknowledged to be a disturbing post-budget trend that they obviously had not contemplated at budget time?

We have not a disturbing post-budget trend. We have——

In the Budget Statement——

If we are to conduct the discussion on that basis we can all score points. The disturbing figures that have emerged are the figures for one month. I would make the point also——

I did not hear what the Minister said.

I try to enunciate clearly.

From your height speaking down sometimes the words get lost.

There is nothing I can do about that. You come half-way to having that kind of problem yourself but you will never get the rest of the way. The disturbing feature that has emerged are the figures for one month. It is not a disturbing trend. I remember Deputy O'Kennedy about this time last year objecting to my use of the trend in figures for several months as being unrepresentative of the trend. In the event he turned out to be right. However, that is water under the bridge. I have not said at any stage that there is a downward trend in unemployment. I have said over the past few months, and it is still the case this month, that we have a downward trend in the rate of growth in unemployment. That gives me no joy but there is a downward trend in the rate of increase in unemployment. The figure on which the provision for the expenditure of the Department of Social Welfare is based, as the Deputy knows, is taken within a range of figures. It is a mid-point in a range. The range is what we expect will be the case during the course of 1984. The figure could turn out to be a little below or above that. My conclusion on the basis of an analysis of the figures as they have emerged in the last month is that the kind of range we have based our figures on is about what we can forecast reliably for 1984.

A final supplementary. Would the Minister recognise that the Government in their official statement and the Taoiseach yesterday indicated clearly that the January figures were, in the words of the Taoiseach, demonstrating a sharp increase in the rate, and in the words of the statement, a disturbing growth in unemployment. Will he acknowledge that they represent something that apparently he did not expect when the budget was being framed when he indicated that the trend was downward? In view of that, will the Minister acknowledge that the official estimates must be influenced by the impact of the budgetary policy on employment — or unemployment? Will he acknowledge that it is time to review some of the provisions in the budget which we will come to in the Finance Bill to give rise to increased investment leading, one would hope, to falling unemployment?

It appears that the Deputy is under a misapprehension. Neither I, the Taoiseach nor any other spokesman for the Government has said at any stage that the trend in unemployment is downward. We have said, and it is still the case, that the rate of increase in the numbers unemployed is moderating. As I have said, it gives me no pleasure to say that, but the rate of increase in unemployment is moderating. On that basis the figures released the other day to us gave me no reason to change my overall forecast for 1984.

I put it to the Minister that the task force in unemployment should bring forward some proposals pretty quickly. They were set up apparently almost 12 months ago and there is no sign of any recommendation that I can see coming from them. I put a question to the Taoiseach yesterday and he informed me, as far as I can remember, that they were considering what proposals they might bring forward. Would the Minister tell the House that he will ask that task force to bring forward their proposals to tackle this emergency in the short term? Finally, will he agree that perhaps we are all taking what is happening in this country at the moment just a little too lightly? Unemployment in Europe is about 10 per cent and it is 16 per cent here.

A question, Deputy.

Would the Minister agree that, despite the trend, if we have 7,000 unemployed every month for the rest of the year, which I know he does not want to contemplate, his figures by the end of the year will be 300,000 which is 75,000 above what he put in his budget? I do not want to contemplate that either. Is he taking this seriously enough? Are the Government taking it seriously? Where are the task force and when will they bring in their recommendations?

Deputy Brennan's case is strong enough and I agree that we should be seriously concerned about unemployment without having to resort to the kind of exaggeration that he has just indulged in. He talks about a figure of 300,000 but I do not intend to get into that argument.

The Minister's 225,000 is off the limit already.

That statement is made without reflection on the figures and it does not serve the Deputy's case too well. I agree with him that we are dealing with an extremely serious problem which will be dealt with properly if we analyse it without recourse to unnecessary exaggeration.

The figure of 7,000 is not an exaggeration.

Deputy Brennan yesterday travelled his question about the task force reasonably well. It is not the case that the task force have not yet announced any initiative of any kind. They made a statement last July which referred to a number of measures which have begun to have effect. I mention only one which I think is important. The Government last year made provision for an enterprise allowance scheme, with which I think the Deputy is familiar, which has turned out to be a valuable initiative in this area and we are now considering what improvements we can make in the scheme in order to build up on the evident willingness of many people now unemployed to get back into gainful employment on their own account. It is important that we encourage people in that respect.

I agree.

I do not accept for one moment that we are taking things too easily in relation to total unemployment. In response to this question which worries all of us, the biggest contribution we in this country can make to the solution of our unemployment problem is to ensure that as far as we can public policies and private actions are of a nature to improve competitiveness in the production of our goods and services. There is ample evidence in the general economic policy of the Government, and in this year's budget, that we are concerned with that.

Mr. Leyden rose.

I indicated to Deputy Brennan that this was the last supplementary question I would permit.

I am anxious to put one supplementary question to the Minister.

I should like to remind the Deputy that nine or ten supplementary questions were put to the Minister on Question No. 2. It is now 3 o'clock and we are just completing discussion on Question No. 2. All questions on the Order Paper are important and, with the Deputy's co-operation, I should like to proceed to the next question and get through as many as possible.

I will be very brief. This is the most important question that will come before the House today.

I appreciate that but up to ten supplementary questions have been put to the Minister about this topic. A considerable amount of time has been allotted to it. The Deputy should permit the House to proceed to Question No. 3.

I did not get an opportunity to put a question to the Minister.

I have called the next question.

I must protest at this action when there are more than 215,000 people unemployed and 2,000 unemployed in my constituency.

The Deputy is being disorderly. He should resume his seat.

I want to put a question to the Minister.

There are 200,000 people who would like to put a question to the Minister.

A balance has to be struck and we cannot equate the value of each of these questions one to the other, because they vary. In the question before the House we are dealing with the most critical problem facing the country and it is not possible to measure the importance of that question by comparing it to others.

There is nobody more concerned or aware of this problem than I am. As I have indicated, nine supplementary questions were put to the Minister in regard to Question No. 2. I believe I have given adequate time to a very important question. It is now 3 o'clock and I would be grateful for the co-operation of Deputies to move on to the other important questions on the Order Paper.

I will co-operate if the Chair permits me to put a question to the Minister.

The Deputy is wasting more time. I am doing my best to move to the next question.

Had the Chair permitted me to put my question in the first instance it would have been answered by now by the Minister. The Minister is adopting a cool, calculated attitude by not putting forward positive policies to relieve the unemployment position. He is callous and uncaring about the problem. He does not seem to care a damn about the problem.

Deputy Leyden should have respect for the House.

The Chair is not permitting me to ask a question and that is why I have to shout it across the Chamber at the Minister.

The Deputy is being disorderly.

The Chair has not given me any choice.

I will ignore that speech and unworthy approach of Deputy Leyden.

The Minister is callous and uncaring about the problem.

Deputy Leyden is being glib; he really takes the biscuit.

I have no doubt the Minister will tax the biscuit he is taking.