asked the Minister for Industry and Commerce the steps he proposes to take to safeguard the jobs of those engaged in the motor car assembly industry.

I am aware of the difficulty being encountered at present by some individual motor vehicle assembly firms, resulting in shorttime working in two and a temporary lay-off of workers in one. This appears to have arisen from a decline in the market demand for motor vehicles. There is no action open to me which would affect that position.

As regards the longer term prospects for employment in motor vehicle assembly, I would refer the Deputy to the reply given on 14th March, 1974, to Questions Nos. 151 and 152 as reported in the relevant Dáil Debates, volume 271/3, columns 313 to 317.

Could the Minister say, if this depressed state of the market is likely to continue? Has the Minister any plans or proposals which might alleviate the difficulties that now arise?

There are two separate strands to this. One is the generally depressed state of the market, because motor vehicles are a sensitive indicator of the purchasing power of a community as a whole. These difficulties are not peculiar to Ireland. They are world-wide for the motor industry—sales, manufacture and so on. The general level of the economy is the important determinant of the purchase of motor vehicles. In regard to the future of the industry, the Deputy will be aware that there are agreements in regard to the finding of other comparable employment for all those who are made redundant in motor assembly and these alternative arrangements are being vigorously pursued by the companies, in some instances with the assistance of my Department and, indeed, in certain cases, with my own participation; and that there are prospects either of obtaining a volume of assembly which can cater for more than the Irish market and therefore be efficient in the long term, or of finding substitute industries which can guarantee that those made redundant in motor assembly can find similar work, and for all of them who wish for that transfer, these arrangements are in hand.

Surely the Minister is aware that the Government are responsible for the general level of the economy, and that the economy, as of November, 1974, is at its lowest ever, and that the Government are responsible for that low level.

The Deputy must be factual.

The Minister has now deliberately misled the House. He has made a long waffling reply to a very brief question and he has not told the truth. The Minister has a grave responsibility——

Deputy Andrews may not impute to any Member of the House that he has not told the truth. The Deputy must withdraw that statement.

How can you withdraw the truth?

There is a long-standing convention in this House, as Deputies are well aware, that you may not impute to any Member of the House that he has told an untruth. I am asking Deputy Andrews to withdraw that statement.

I am suggesting the Minister gave a deliberately misleading, dishonest and untruthful answer.

The Deputy is compounding it now by adding the words "deliberately misleading" and "dishonest".

I see nothing wrong with the suggestion——

The rules of the House on this are quite specific.

I see nothing wrong with the suggestion that the Minister has deliberately misled the House in his reply. That is fair; it is a political charge.

The Chair is not disputing that. The Chair is disputing the imputation of untruth to the Minister.

I did not use the word "lie", because I do not believe in that crude abuse. I used the word "untruth".

I take it the Deputy is withdrawing it.