asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the number of jobs lost in each manufacturing sector since the inception of the Programme for National Recovery; and if he will ensure that all references to jobs created under the programme in official statements will take due account of jobs lost.

4.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason the Government present their job targets in gross rather than net terms; and if the use of gross targets tends to focus undue attention on new firms to the detriment of existing ones.

15.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce if the job targets of his Department take adequate account of job losses.

48.

asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the reason the job targets in the Programme for National Recovery are gross targets and take no account of job losses in the sectors in question.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 3, 4, 15 and 48 together.

The Programme for National Recovery specifies as an objective of policy for the manufacturing and international services sectors the creation of 20,000 extra jobs on average per year over the next ten years, the actual provision accelerating as the programme's policies take effect. In relation to job losses, the programme says clearly that the offsetting trend in job losses in these sectors cannot be foreseen accurately. I am confident that the major improvement in the overall business climate and the specific policy initiatives being taken under the programme to further the development of the indigenous industrial sector will be such as to make existing jobs more secure.

Statements in relation to job creation developments under the programme relate to performance against the targets set under the programme. The Labour Force Survey for mid April 1988 showed no decrease in manufacturing employment compared with the corresponding figure for 1987 while an increase of 10,000 jobs was recorded in services. Pending the completion of the IDA's 1988 employment survey, there are no figures available on job losses in individual manufacturing sectors.

Would the Minister accept that the only relevant and meaningful figure is the one for the net increase in employment in any given sector and that to attempt to use the figure for the gross increase while not taking into account the figure for job losses is misleading to use a polite word?

The programme stated quite clearly that it was not possible to estimate accurately how many job losses there would be but let me give the Deputy the up to date figures so as to provide the full picture and so that he can make an overall judgment. On the basis of the surveys which had been carried out, the position is, up until September of this year, that 12,500 jobs had been created by the IDA; 1,958 in the SFADCo territories and 485 in the Gaeltacht territories, giving a total of 14,950. Let me also refer the Deputy to the figure for notified redundancies to the Department of Labour in the manufacturing sector which totalled 7,738. Therefore, it is quite clear that the rate of closures and job losses has been stabilised and that there has been a net increase. All of the surveys show this trend quite clearly.

Is the Minister suggesting that the only jobs lost are through redundancies?

What I am saying is that when the IDA publish the results of the annual survey the Deputy will get the full picture. I have given the Deputy the total number of new jobs created at 14,950 and I have also given him the figure for the number of redundancies in the manufacturing sector as notified to the Department of Labour. I can only give the statistics and figures which are available to me.

May I take it that the Minister is not suggesting that that is the figure for total job losses which I believe is much higher?

I am not suggesting that but what I am suggesting, and I am sure the Deputy will agree with me, is that the results of all the recent surveys show an upward trend.

(Limerick East): That is not right.

This trend is very clear from the surveys. I am talking about jobs in the manufacturing sector and I have given the number of redundancies in that sector. We can clearly see what the position is. There has been a net increase which is in contrast with the position we had to deal with over the last number of years.

My final point is that the fall in unemployment began in 1985 and the decline in unemployment is due to the policies of the previous Government. We have been in the process of restabilisation and growth in employment since 1985, not, as the Minister would seem to be suggesting, since 1987.

The Deputy is always a good man at twisting statistics but one would really have to turn that statistic on its head to be able to draw that conclusion.

I am quoting the figures from a Government report issued in August.

The Deputy should read the Labour Force Survey and he will see that there has been an increase of 10,000 in the number employed in services.

Could the Minister turn his attention to Question No. 4 on today's Order Paper? Would he agree that the Government set targets for agencies in regard to the number of new jobs to be created only, while ignoring the number of jobs lost, with the result that agencies such as the IDA and SFADCo devote a disproportionate amount of their time to the problems of new and expanding firms and little or no time to firms where the task is to maintain existing jobs rather than to create jobs? If the Government were to change their targets and set them in terms of net job increases in particular sectors to take account of both job losses and job gains, would the Minister agree that this would lead to a more balanced work practice by the agencies concerned?

I appeal for brevity. Brief and precise questions, please.

I have listened with interest to the Deputy's question. What the Deputy is really asking is this: will you set targets for job losses? The aim of this Government is to set targets to increase net employment and not to set targets for job losses. The Deputy and everybody in this House know full well that jobs were lost in this country over a number of years because of the uncompetitive position of the Irish economy. That is an established fact of life and nobody will deny it. It is also an established fact of life that, since this economy was pulled together, since inflation has been brought down to under 2 per cent — and incidentally inflation across the water is two-and-a-half times greater than it is here and rising — and since inflation rates have come down——

Who brought them down?

——and there are five percentage points between here and the UK and since the Government, various Ministers and I took firm decisions to push down industrial costs, jobs have been saved. That is why we now have stabilisation in the economy and are beginning to move in an upward trend. That is the reality of the situation. I have no intention of setting job loss targets because my target is to make sure that there are no job losses if at all possible.

Deputy Martin Cullen.

May I ask the Minister——

Order, please. I have called Deputy Martin Cullen. I am sorry, Deputy Bruton.

Because the Minister was able to tell us specifically the number of jobs lost in the manufacturing sector, can I ask him, in relation to the figure of 14,950 jobs, to identify within that figure how many of those are manufacturing jobs which have been created? Are they all manufacturing jobs?

Which figure?

The 14,950 jobs which have been created between IDA, SFADCo and the Gaeltacht. Seeing that the Minister was able to give us a figure for redundancies in manufacturing, can he say how many of those jobs are specifically manufacturing jobs?

I would give the Deputy the answer to that if he had put down a question. If the Deputy wants to put down a question, no doubt he will get an answer to it. I am giving all the information I have available based on the question asked.