asked the Minister for Finance if he is satisfied with the progress being made in achieving the number one objective of the national plan, Building On Reality, 1985-1987, namely the need, as the major priority, to halt and reverse the continuing upward spiral of unemployment; the unemployment figures at the end of each month since the publication of the plan; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

The national plan is intended to create the conditions in which employment will be more readily created and sustained. While I would like to see greater progress being made with unemployment, I should point out that the growth in manufacturing output, which increased by 13½ per cent in the first 11 months of 1984, combined with the measures taken in my recent budget, will have a major positive impact on unemployment during the course of the year. These factors will be reinforced by the substantial initiatives announced in the plan to assist the long term unemployed and which have not yet begun to take effect.

The end month live register totals since the national plan was published were as follows: October 1984, 212, 290; November 1984, 216, 517; December 1984, 225, 445; January 1985 234, 064; February 1985 233, 909.

It is very obvious the figures are going in the wrong direction. Can the Minister give us any positive indication that the plan has any relevance at all, seeing that in the past six months we have had an increase of more than 20,000 in the unemployment list? The unemployed and I are not interested in industrial output. We are interested in jobs. Can the Minister give us any indication of progress towards creating real jobs?

In the national plan we provided for a series of measures, including direct employment, and we have provided assistance to industry which will have a positive effect on employment. The effect of this year's budget will be to improve employment prospects. I do not think the Deputy should ask me to reverse any of those.

Specifically, what budget measure is the Minister talking about? He spoke about reduced taxation on the PAYE sector whereas in fact he increased it. This year there will be an increase of £177 million in PAYE tax. Would the Minister tell us specifically about the positive measures in the budget that will improve employment?

We have debated the plan three times and we are in the middle of the budget debate and I would warn the Deputy against confusing——

The Minister should not be provocative.

I am trying to be factual. The tax measures which we took in this year's budget will mean that each individual taxpayer in 1985-86 will have less to pay than if we had made no changes in the system. Naturally the total tax take will increase because of increases in individual incomes. Whether the Deputy likes it or not, the changes made in VAT, particularly the reduction from 35 per cent to 23 per cent, will have a big impact on the cash flow of Irish industry and allow industry to expand and thereby to increase employment. It is measures of that kind that will have an effect on employment.

Would the Minister change the title to "Ignoring Reality" in view of the fact that within months of the publication of the plan, which was based on an average of 217,500 unemployed, in two consecutive months we have had a figure of 234,000 unemployed? Because of that, the Government found it necessary to appoint the Minister for Defence——

This is becoming an argument.

In the document facts are ignored which the Minister has accepted today.

I am not sure if that is a question. I would remind Deputy O'Kennedy that already we have had two or three debates on the plan which has been endorsed and re-endorsed in the House.

The Minister continued to borrow dollars.

The live register increase of 9,000 was less than the increase we had projected. Therefore, we started off marginally better off.

Does the Minister agree that the White Paper on Industrial Policy states categorically that the emphasis would be on productivity and not on the creation of employment? Has that influenced the Minister in his application to the plan?

Last week Deputy O'Kennedy and I discussed this matter. The prospects of employment in the plan are consistent, in so far as industrial employment is concerned, with the prospects in the White Paper. The White Paper contains specific projects in regard to productivity. In addition, we are projecting a further increase in the services sector.

Will the Minister agree that as far as industrial employment is concerned, that is the burden of the message from the White Paper, namely, that employment in industrial activity is not to be the objective but that productivity is?

No, I do not agree that that in any way can be represented as being the message in the White Paper.

Words do not mean anything any more.

Not from the benches opposite.