asked the Taoiseach if he will indicate the system used in establishing monthly emigration figures.

10.

asked the Taoiseach the estimated number of persons who emigrated from the State during the first nine months of this year; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 9 and 10 together.

In order to determine the actual numbers of inward and outward migrants in any period it would be necessary to have comprehensive documentary or other administrative procedures relating to the movement of persons into and out of the State. As such procedures are not in force the only reliable estimates of migration flows are those for net migration, that is the difference between the inward and outward flows, between successive censuses of population.

Population estimates, which are subject to revision when the results of the next census become available, are made in respect of mid-April of each year from which estimates of net migration can be derived for the 12 months to mid-April. The latest available net migration estimate is that for the 12 months to mid-April 1988; for this period it is estimated that there was net outward migration of 32,000.

Net migration estimates are not made on a monthly or other sub-annual basis.

Does the Minister of State not acknowledge that since we are given the live register figures every month which gives us the unemployment rate and we periodically get the so-called employment and employment creation figures, that a vital component of the economic jigsaw, the actual number of people as against estimates given by the Minister of State, is missing from the total economic picture and that we are getting a totally flattering indication of economic performance, particularly our performance in relation to job creation, growth in the economy, emigration, unemployment etc?

This question deals only with emigration which is a completely different question from that which could be put in relation to jobs. The system has not changed. It is similar to what has been in operation for a number of years. The only positive way of identifying emigration is, as I have stated, by comparing the flow of passenger movement into and out of the country.

Does the Minister of State not acknowledge that at a figure of 32,000 for a 12 month period, April to April, this amounts to 600 people per week fleeing the country? The finest generation that we have ever had are fleeing the country. Does the Minister not agree that this is a frightening indictment of the economic performance here?

Questions, please.

Recently we heard assertions from people like Mr. White of the IDA that this country was turning the corner in relation to this downward spiral.

I must dissuade the Deputy from making a speech.

In 1988 the figure was 32,000. In 1986 it was 28,000. It is well known to the Deputy that in 1988 many people who have emigrated have done so for reasons other than employment.

In order to try to pin down this question of net emigration, as the Minister refers to it, could he tell us how the Central Statistics Office or this Government reconcile the fact that the Tánaiste, the IDA and the Government claim that 20,000 new jobs have been created this year with the fact that the Department of Labour have said they will lose 20,000 jobs this year—

The Deputy is injecting new matter into the question which deals with emigration figures only.

I am seeking clarification. I am not injecting anything other than facts in relation to this question of emigration. The labour force survey indicates that there are 6,000 extra jobs——

The Deputy must desist from following that line of argument.

I am asking the Minister about emigration. How can he say that only 32,000 have emigrated when all of these figures contradict what he is stating?

I am now calling on Deputy Quinn.

With reference to Question No. 9 and the Minister's reply, in relation to the critical role that emigration now assumes in the Estimates and to other figures relating to Government activity, would the Minister not consider that the establishment of some system of monitoring on a monthly basis to include monitoring the motives for emigration would be very useful? In the light of the large volume that has persisted over a number of years and which is likely to continue, would the Minister consider introducing some system of monthly monitoring in line with the other monthly statistics we get?

That would be an extremely difficult operation. I see what the Deputy is getting at. I will take this matter further with the Central Statistics Office. The fact remains that the system we have been using is a very accurate system and the figures that have come out, 32,000 in 1988, 28,000 in 1986——

I want to call two Deputies who have been offering for some time.

On a point of order, Question No. 10 has been taken in tandem with Question No. 9. The Chair allowed at least three supplementaries to the person who had Question No. 9 down. I expect to get equal treatment in this House.

That is not a point of order. I called the Deputy and he did not put relevant supplementary questions.

I put questions that I think are relevant.

I want to facilitate as many Deputies as possible, if they will be brief — Deputies Farrelly, Sheehan, Taylor-Quinn.

The Minister informed us that the emigration figures in 1986 were 28,000 and that in 1988, up to the middle of April, they were 32,000. Is the Minister not alarmed at the effect of the brain drain of this nation which has increased by 4,000 since he came into office? What steps are the Government taking to reverse this trend? Crocodile tears were shed on that side of the House when it was at 28,000 but now it is accepted that the figure is 32,000.

I called Deputy Farrelly in the hope that he had a brief and relevant question. I am now calling Deputy Sheehan.

I would like the Minister to give an answer.

It is not relevant.

It is very relevant.

In view of the huge number of people emigrating each year, will the Minister now consider waiving the £5 Government travel tax on all emigrants?

That is a separate question. I am calling on Deputy McDowell.

Since this party left office that tax has brought in over £25 million in taxation. The more people who leave the more tax the Government get.

Would the Minister agree that the figures he gave for emigration were net and that the 32,000 figure does not tell the full truth, that it is more likely that 40,000 or 50,000 people are leaving and that 10,000 are coming back to retire? Would the Minister not indicate that that may be the answer to Deputy De Rossa's question, that the numbers actually going are greatly in excess of 32,000?

I can only repeat that the figure is 32,000 and that is a very reliable figure based on the system I have outlined.

I am calling Deputy De Rossa for a final brief supplementary.

I notice, a Cheann Comhairle, that every time you call me, you call me for a brief supplementary.

If the Deputy persists in arguing with the Chair, I will pass on to the next question. I have afforded the Deputy every courtesy. He knows the rules at Question Time.

Other Deputies have been allowed more supplementaries on my Question than I have been allowed.

Please do not follow that line of argument with me.

How can the Minister claim there were 32,000 emigrants last year while all of the other figures in relation to job creation, in relation to claims regarding increases in jobs and people at work point to the fact that these figures are wrong? Will the Minister indicate how he proposes to institute a system which will give us accurate emigration figures?

Deputy De Rossa's question was very simple. It asked the estimated number of persons who emigrated from the State. I have given that information and again I must repeat, for the third time, that it is based on a system that has been operated for many years and which until recently was never criticised as being inaccurate.

A Cheann Comhairle, you indicated that you would allow me a supplementary.

I am sorry, Deputy. The Chair must be obeyed at some stage. I have called Question No. 11.