asked the Minister for Local Government the amount of money in current and in real terms allocated for roads in 1974, 1975 and 1976.

Road Fund grant allocations were £16 millions for the nine-month period of 1974 and £21.006 millions and £20.4 millions for the full years of 1975 and 1976 respectivedy.

It has been estimated that there were cost increases affecting the building and construction industry of 20.8 per cent between 1974 and 1975 and 19 per cent between 1975 and 1976.

I would remind the Deputy that since 1973 the total provided by Central Government to local authorities by way of grants, including Road Fund grants, subsidies and capital allocations has increased from about £103 million to £235 million. In other terms, 58 per cent of the total estimated spending in 1976 by local authorities will be met by funds provided by the State, compared with 50 per cent in 1972-73.

Finally, as I have already indicated, Road Fund grants in 1975 and 1976 have been so allocated and are so expended as to afford the maximum protection possible to the employment of road workers.

When the Minister has a bad case he invariably endeavours to compare two things which are not alike. Would the Minister agree that the cutback in real money terms for roads will result in further unemployment?

No.

That is rather strange, if we can employ more people with less money.

The type of work being done has a big effect on it.

Will the Minister say if he has instructed local authorities to cutback on the buying of road building materials——

No.

——and, if that were so, would he not agree it would create a further source of unemployment?

No, I have not given any such instruction.

He is cutting the money.

I have not cut the money.

The money has been cut very considerably if we take it in real terms——

A question, please, Deputy.

——and compare the amount that is given this year with last year. Is the Minister satisfied that, with the amount of money being made available, the roads will not deteriorate to an extent which will leave them almost unusable.

Yes, I am perfectly satisfied. As a matter of fact, a great deal of the money will be spent this year on roads which have not had attention for many years, because there are some new construction works which normally would be done but which are not being done this year. That will not result in a deterioration of the roads. I grant the Deputy that it will result in new roads not being built, but the money so saved will be spent on roads for which the county engineers have been asking for extra money for about 20 years and have not been able to get it. As a matter of interest, the estimated road expenditure for 1974 was £42 million; 1975, £45 million; and 1976, £48.5 million, that is, counting the State grants and what is put up by the local authorities. Therefore I do not know how the cutback Deputy Faulkner is talking about could have occurred.

Is it not a fact that, if inflation is taken into consideration, very much less money is being made available this year than last year and that instead of workers being seen on the roads, now all that is seen are whitewashed tar barrels.

Deputy Faulkner is obviously referring to the national primary roads. He does not see workers on some of the big jobs where machinery would eat up the money made available, but it would not do the Deputy any harm to go on to the side roads and take a look at the many workers employed on roads where they have not put a shovel for 20 years.

Would the Minister let the House know——

I have allowed Deputy Faulkner a number of supplementaries. Deputy Colley.

The Minister was asked for the figures in current and real terms. He gave them in current terms, but I do not think he gave them in real terms.

I am sorry. I have not got that here.

Is that not the question that was asked?

Yes, but I will get the figures for Deputy Faulkner. I have not got them in my brief.

Could the Minister enlighten the House as to why he does not have this figure, considering that is what he was asked for?

I cannot tell him.

How does the Minister reconcile his statement that more money is available for roads this year with the circular he has sent to local authorities asking them to ensure that permanent staff would be kept in employment, something we did not need to have before?

That is a misunderstanding, because what I said, in fact, was that the money should be expended for the purpose of ensuring employment for road workers, because there are more than the permanent people employed. Deputy Gallagher must be aware that his party did a rather peculiar thing; they divided up the money between the councillors so that a certain amount would be spent in each area.

Is it not a fact that the money available is not sufficient——

Order. Question No. 5.

We shall wait until the end of the year to see who is right and who is wrong.

On a point of order. May I ask your direction as to what the position is where a Minister is asked in a written question for information and then does not produce it? If you have no function in this matter, which may be the position, I would suggest that to allow this to pass without comment is affecting the rights of every Member of the House. If it is your position, Sir, that you cannot control this, could I ask if you would refer the matter to the Committee on Procedure and Privileges?

The Minister's replies are not a matter for the Chair. If a Member wishes to raise the matter elsewhere he may do so. The Chair has no control over Minister's replies.

On a point of order, Sir, when you say you have no control over the Minister and his replies, surely you have the same control over a Minister as you have over any other Deputy, and if a Minister misleads the House, you have a function to correct the situation?

It must be clear to the Deputy that the Chair has no control over the replies a Minister gives in this House.

Are you suggesting then that the Minister is different from a Deputy in this House?

No.

What is the difference? He is a Member of this House and surely he must be subject to the same disciplines?

The Minister is responsible for the replies, not the Chair.

May I make the point that I got figures which do not give me the amount of money in real terms as requested. I have explained I have not got the information in my brief and was prepared to make this available. There is no question of misleading the House. I think Deputy Tunney should not have made that suggestion.

He is subject to the same rules as any other Deputy.

I have been subject to the same rules as have affected Ministers of this House since the State was formed. Those who are long enough here would know that.

I never remember that kind of thing happening under any previous Administrations of any political party.

Then the Deputy forgets things he does not like.

Could the Minister point out some evidence of this happening under any previous Government.

May I ask the Minister to give me the totals for 1975 and 1976?

Does the Deputy want the allocations or the total expenditure?

Allocations.

The figures are £16 million for the nine-month period of 1974, £21.006 million and £20.4 million for the full years 1975 and 1976 respectively.

With the rate of inflation this year at approximately 20 per cent, while in current terms the allocations are £21 million for last year and £20 million for this year, we can make the case that there is a 20 per cent reduction in the amount of money being made available this year?

Perhaps the Deputy would relate that to the calls from that side of the House that there should be a reduction in Government expenditure?

The Minister is changing feet very fast.