asked the Minister for Labour if, in respect of each of the past ten years he will give the percentage in the public sector, of the total of man-days lost due to strikes.

The Central Statistics Office is the official source of statistics relating to industrial disputes. However, the figures published by that office do not differentiate between disputes in the private and public sectors.

My Department estimate that 36 per cent of man-days lost through strikes during 1978 resulted from strikes in the public sector. Statistics relating to any earlier periods are not available to me.

Is the Minister aware that his colleague, the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy, told this House some weeks ago in a debate that the figure was 80 per cent? If so how has the inconsistency arisen?

I have been asked a question by the Deputy which I have replied to and if he wants further elaboration the monitoring unit of the Department of Labour set up by my predecessor has, over the period since its establishment in 1976, been keeping more and more detailed statistics in relation to industrial disputes. I can give the Deputy some further information on strike numbers which relate to the three previous years. I cannot, as I said in my reply, give him the statistics for the period immediately prior to 1978 but I will be able to do so in the future. For example, in 1976 the total number of strikes in the private and public sectors was 199 of which 42 were public sector strikes; in 1977 the total was 232 of which 54 were public sector strikes; in 1978 the total figure was 170 of which 45 were public sector strikes.

The Minister's most recent reply did not refer to man-days lost. I asked him how the Minister for Industry, Commerce and Energy was misled in stating that 80 per cent of man-days lost was due to strikes in the public sector?

That does not relate to the question.

It arises out of the question. Can the Minister indicate how this confusion has arisen?

I have heard the Deputy make so many statements in this House that need to be clarified afterwards. It is not my function to answer him in this House but it is something that he can of course raise if he wishes.

He is raising it now.

I am raising it now. How did the Minister's colleague get his figures wrong?

I cannot be responsible for that. I have heard Deputy Mitchell, despite the interventions of his leader, make so many statements in this House that just do not stand up that I cannot be sure when or where my colleagues made the reference that he has just referred to. I am also saying that I cannot answer for him. The Deputy asked me a question and I have given the reply to the question that he asked.

In the event that two different answers come from two different Ministers—and it is a matter that can be established by examining the record—how can a Deputy establish the truth of the position except by asking each of the two Ministers? It sounds a bit like a two-card trick.

If Deputy FitzGerald would give me the exact quotation I will clarify it for him.

To straighten this out, perhaps we could raise this on the Adjournment and get the appropriate quotation in the meantime?

I will communicate with the Deputy.