asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if his attention has been drawn to the Review of Industrial Performance, 1986 regarding employment which states that the prospects for employment growth in manufacturing industry over the next three years cannot be viewed with optimism, yet, the objective of the White Paper is to secure increases in the order of 3,000-6,000 jobs per annum; and if he will make a statement on these two conflicting statements.

I am aware of the statement in the Review of Industrial Performance, 1986 that the immediate prospects for employment growth in manufacturing industry cannot be viewed with optimism. I understand that the revision of the employment projection compared with that set out in the White Paper on Industrial Policy published by the Government in 1984 followed a detailed analysis of manufacturing performance for the years 1980 to 1986. This analysis indicated that poor output performance in the traditional industry sectors resulted in a high level of job loss and that a sustained output recovery across broad sectors of industry would be required to reverse that trend.

The present Government's strategy as set out in the Programme for National Recovery, is to stimulate overall economic growth which I am confident will lead to a resumption of net employment growth in manufacturing industry.

I did not hear the Minister refer to the Review of Industrial Performance or perhaps I missed it. The question is basically about trying to reconcile the conflict which is implicit in the White Paper and its expectations and in the Review of Industrial Performance published by the Minister's Department, a much under-considered document. The two are clearly at odds and I wonder how does the Minister reconcile that?

I have no difficulty in reconciling it. As I said, the previous Government produced a White Paper on Industrial Policy. I am sure the Deputy knows full well that it included a growth target of between 3,000 and 6,000 jobs per annum in net manufacturing employment. The Review of Industrial Performance shows exactly what happened. The projection in the White Paper was for 3,000 to 6,000 jobs per year in net manufacturing employment during the following ten years. This document shows that instead of gaining 3,000 to 6,000 jobs we lost 6,000 jobs in that period.

I do not see where the conflict is.

One document deals with the facts and the other with expectations.

The point of the question is to establish the purpose of White Papers and the purpose of Departments who produce White Papers. If they are so erroneous and so wide off the mark that they are 100 per cent off target, how can the Minister defend that? I am not blaming him personally but I am talking about the Department of Industry and Commerce.

I do not accept the Deputy can blame the Department of Industry and Commerce in that regard. It is the Government's decision at the end of the day to accept or reject the plans put to them. When a White Paper on industrial policy is published that is Government policy. It is not the policy of any particular Department. It is Government policy and they have to take full responsibility for it and for what happens afterwards.

It is not the case that publications by the Government are based on submissions by Departments and that the actual writing of the document is more often done by the Department? I am not suggesting there is not political responsibility for it; I am talking about the basic content and the outlined proposals in the White Paper which were so off the marks as to——

This is merely leading to argument.

I am not arguing with the fact that——

That is what it amounts to.

While accepting that Governments have political responsibility, I am asking the Minister if he agrees that all of the input to a document published under the Government's name emanates from Government Departments. I want to know how, in this case, the Government got it so wrong.

The Deputy has asked that question at least three times.

But I did not get an answer.

That is not the Chair's fault.

I want to refute any suggestion by the Deputy that the Department have any responsibility in this regard. I was party to the preparation of the document and I take full responsibility for my Department's input.

How did the Minister get it so wrong?

I cannot comment on how the White Paper on Industrial Policy was formulated by a previous Government, because I was not part of it——

They obviously got advice from the Department.

The Deputy was a member of a party who were in Government. A Government get advice and it is up to them to decide if they accept or reject it. If they publish the document they carry full responsibility for it.

That is not the answer.

I answered the question.

The Minister is shielding the Department.

I am not.