asked the Taoiseach what expert economic advice was available to him from within Government Departments, when drawing up the document Building on Reality.

The Government made use of the range of expertise available to them from within Government Departments in preparing the national plan Building on Reality.

Would the Taoiseach care to comment on persistent rumours to the effect that the advice of the higher echelon of the Department of Finance and of the Central Bank were completely ignored by the Government in the preparation and formulation of the document which was published recently?

Such a comment would be more appropriate to a debate.

Unfortunately, this is Question Time. We have Question Time every day and we cannot anticipate any item on the Order Paper.

First, I want to rebut totally the innuendo of the Leader of the Opposition.

It is not an innuendo. It is a statement.

Order, please.

It is a question and a statement.

The Deputy has referred to rumours being circulated and in view of the nature of the allegation made and the fact that the national plan includes a whole range of figures it many require from me a rather long reply, but it is important to answer this allegation.

Macroeconomic projections of price change and economic growth were based on EEC Commission forecasts for the world economy and prepared by the Budget and Planning Division of the Department of Finance in consultation with the Department of Agriculture, including use of the Central Bank/ Department of Finance econometric model of the Irish economy to check for internal consistency.

The labour force projections used the results of a special study prepared by a group of demographic experts, including experts from outside the Civil Service. These results, completed in July, (too late for inclusion in Industrial Policy White Paper) indicated labour force growth over the period of the plan ranging from 10,000 per annum (high emigration) to 15,000 per annum (low emigration). (The plan used low emigration forecast.)

2,000.

The consistency of the employment figures with the growth projections were verified by the Budget and Planning Division of the Department of Finance in consultation with the Department of Labour. Contributions on employment and efficiency were from all relevant Departments, particularly Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Agriculture, Communications, Environment, Energy and the Public Service. This chapter on the long term unemployed was mainly the responsibility of the Department of Labour. Contributions on social policy were from all relevant Departments, particularly Education, Health, Social Welfare and Environment. The chapter on taxation was the responsibility of the Department of Finance. On public finances the costings of expenditure measures agreed by Government were carried out by the Public Expenditure Division of the Department of Finance.

Computation of the resulting budgetary profile, with forecasts of the current budget deficit, Exchequer and public sector borrowing, and the national debt were carried out by the Budget and Planning Division of the Department of Finance.

The group preparing the plan was chaired by my Department. This group had respresentatives of the Ministers for Energy, Environment, Finance (2), Health, Industry Trade, Commerce and Tourism, and Labour.

I am glad to have had the opportunity to clarify that, before the Leader of the Opposition lets that hare run. I should like to add that every figure in respect of the public finances in the document was prepared by and authorised by the Department of Finance. We were meticulous in ensuring that was the case. We have not used the practice used on one occasion some years ago by another Government of simply adjusting the figures by £130 million and knocking £5 million or £10 million off various Departments.

That is all old hat.

It may be old hat but it will not be forgotten by the people.

It would help everybody if the Taoiseach would stick to his own responsibilities and defend his own spurious figures if he can. I am glad that the Taoiseach has acknowledged the discrepancy between the key and crucial figures——

That is not a question.

Is the Taoiseach aware that he has now for the first time admitted the realities which I have been pointing out about the discrepancy between the key and crucial area of labour force figures in the White Paper on industrial development which gave 15,000 and a paper published three months later which gave 17,000? Does the Taoiseach not accept that that gives very great credence to my entire argument?

I am calling the next question.

I must be entitled to reply to those allegations.

I have not finished. Does the Taoiseach accept that between the unreal cash limits——

The Deputy does not like to get the answers.

——stipulated to be based on Government Departments, between all the hitherto unknown, but certainly definite additional local taxes and charges that are coming and between the discrepancy in regard to the labour force figures the whole economic plan exercise is now seen to be at least dubious and almost certainly spurious? Will he answer this question for me? Is it true that, either during the course of the preparation of this document or subsequent to it, six economists left the Department of Finance because they could not take what they were seeing being published?

The handlers have replaced them.

What has been demonstrated by the questions and answers given is the spuriousness of the Deputy's allegations. As I have pointed out the figures in the national plan are the most up-to-date projections prepared by a demographic group of experts including two outsiders who reported in July after the publication of the industrial policy. The basis the Government used was the low emigration basis of the alternative range offered. I am glad to have the opportunity to clarify that because the Deputy has been attempting to mislead public opinion on this issue. He will not get away with it. The more questions he asks in this House the more the spurious nature of his allegations will be exposed.

What about the six economists? The Taoiseach has not answered my question. Have six outside economists resigned from the Department of Finance?

I am calling Question No. 4.

There are no outside economists in the Department of Finance.

Is the Taoiseach afraid to answer?

I have called Question No. 4.

Is it true?

There are no outside economists in the Department of Finance.

I am ruling Deputy Haughey out of order.

I must take it that it is true that six economists have left the Department of Finance.

Deputy Haughey will resume his seat. He is being disorderly.

The Taoiseach cannot stand over this spurious document.

I am sorry Sir ——

I will not allow a debate on this.

There are no spurious figures in this document.

The fiction writers are at it again.