——which is part and parcel of this Government's approach. With regard to the leak now suggested — as distinct from a handout to spokesmen through whom this Government work — it makes two points; first, a 6 per cent cutback across the board and, secondly, a freezing of the capital programme for last year's Estimates. Will the Minister assure the House that we will not find such a non-selective decision on the part of this Government as a 6 per cent cutback across the board which will in no way reflect the priorities for Government allocation as between, for instance, the productive areas and the wasteful administrative areas of this economy?

That seems to be a separate question.

It is not. It must arise directly from a 6 per cent cutback across the board.

This is about a document. It is simply asking if a document will be made available.

It refers clearly, as I am sure the Minister will indicate, to a 6 per cent cutback across the board and the freezing of the capital programme for last year. Will the Minister assure the House that there will not be a 6 per cent cutback across the board, which would be a total abrogation of Government responsibility in not defining priority areas for extra expenditure?

I am ruling that this is a separate question.

It is not.

It clearly is.

I cannot see why it is.

I can see and I am so ruling.

How can it be a separate question when it is contained in the very document which the Minister said has been leaked?

The Deputy is holding up a newspaper in his hand and if he is referring to that in his question he could not refer to anything that is in the document.

It was a document leaked from Government sources.

The thrust of the question is about the leak of a document, not something regarding the wisdom or foolishness of what is in the document.

I am more concerned at this point about the wisdom or foolishness I have to take.

The Deputy will have to avail of an opportunity of putting down another question. If he puts down another question, certainly in my opinion it would not be ruled out of order.

Questions Nos. 9, 10, 11 and 12 all relate to this topic. I have one final question to ask which is at least as important as some others on which we have spent a long time.

I thought I would make a better hand of the Deputy than some of his colleagues would.

Will the Minister assure us that we are not going to have a non-selective, indiscriminate 6 per cent cutback across the board? Secondly, will we see the capital programme approached on the basis that it would be used for the necessary infrastructural development, particularly to promote employment in the housing industry and the road industry?

That would be much more appropriate on a budget or an Estimate debate.

It relates to public expenditure.

I assure the Deputy that this Government do not believe in non-selective cutbacks without reference to priorities, as is illustrated by action that we have taken to date — for example, by the fact that we have decided to have reviewed overall progress in relation to budgetary targets this year and to paying a second week's allowance to long-term social welfare beneficiaries at Christmas. We do not believe in non-selective cutbacks of this kind, neither do we believe in carrying out the kind of pie in the sky exercise carried out by the Deputy's own party in producing their so-called plan entitled The Way Forward, since abandoned.

In so far as the Minister has indicated that the Government do not pursue non-selective cutbacks, can I take it that say, an 88 per cent increase in the administrative agencies, all nonproductive departments, is a Government priority whereas a cutback in areas such as agriculture and fisheries is equally a characteristic of this Government's priorities? If what the Minister said is true, that is the priority this Government are following and that is part of the problem we are now suffering from in this economy.

Did I hear the Minister saying he is going to pay a double supplement at Christmas?

Yes.

May he live to be 100 years of age.

Good wishes are not in order at Question Time.

The Deputy's question, which is very much in line with what he was asking earlier, is a very non-specific type of question.

It is very specific.

I repeat that this Government's approach to public expenditure, both current and capital, this year, next year and in future years will be determined by a very clear view as to where the priorities are and what the main objectives must be. We are not in the business of either non-selective cutbacks or increases without reference to priorities.

Finally, in view of his determination to apply such selective priorities, will the Minister ensure that, for instance, we will not see an 88 per cent growth in administrative agencies which we have in this year's allocation while seeing a cutback in such fundamental areas as specialist education programmes, oral examinations in leaving certificate examinations and so on? If that is the measure of the priorities we are going to see next year and as we see this year, then we reject totally what the Minister is doing.

The Deputy should contain his soul in patience and all will be revealed to him.