asked the Minister for Labour if he will give a breakdown of the expenditure of the £2 million provided in the recent budget for youth affairs; and the aspects of the national youth policy which will not be undertaken during 1986 because of financial restraints.

It is not possible at this stage to give a breakdown of the £2 million provided in the budget as the final allocation of these funds will be decided on the basis of proposals from local youth service boards and voluntary youth organisations towards meeting the objectives of the national youth policy "In Partnership With Youth". The available funds allow for all aspects of the National Youth Service to be undertaken on a phased basis as provided for in the policy.

As this £2 million is to provide for all aspects of the national youth policy and in view of the fact that the Costello Commission estimated that the total cost of the proposals would be approximately £20 million, would the Minister consider that the £2 million allocated is totally inadequate and that an expenditure of only £2 million in such a wide area will lead to a great deal of frustration for the people involved in providing youth services? It would have been better to put this money into existing youth services rather than setting up a further bureaucratic structure.

Deputy Fahey has a later question about the latter point. As regards the national youth policy, this is to be phased in and extended over the youth service grant scheme, the local youth service boards, the national programmes and the facilities for youth. That will take a certain amount of time to set up and phase in, but that is the intention. If the Deputy has followed progress in this matter he will be aware that recommendations have been made with regard to the number of local youth service boards which it was recommended would be set up in 1986.

The Government set out in the youth policy a number of initiatives which should have been taken in the past three years, but they have not provided the money for those initiatives. There is not much point in bringing forward a glossy document——

A question please, Deputy.

——outlining a policy where Government action is urgently needed in youth policy areas without providing the money. This amounts to no more than a con job.

That is not a question.

If the Deputy examines the record he will find that this Government have made available more funds for youth than any previous Government. The youth policy was adopted formally by the Government only last year and an award of £2 million was made then. It is expected that that money will be expended this year on the phasing-in process.

That is not an answer to my question. May I ask a final supplementary?

I hope it is a question.

Is it intended to give the House an opportunity to debate the Government youth policy?

I would welcome any suggestion the Deputy might make in that regard but the question of a debate in this House is for the Whips to decide.

Would the Minister tell the House what are his own priorities? I accept that the document is just pie in the sky and that it is full of aspirations, but what would the Minister like to see implemented?

I do not accept that this document is pie in the sky.

The Minister does not have to defend it because he had nothing to do with it——

That is a separate question.

Will the Minister give his own views?

We had complaints last Tuesday from Deputy Mervyn Taylor, Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla and Deputy Michael Barrett that it was unfair to Deputies who had questions down that these questions were not reached. We made considerable progress yesterday and I ask Deputies to make at least reasonable progress today.

That is an irrelevant aspiration under the present system because, as the Chair knows, the names to the questions have nothing to do with——

Deputy Ahern cannot blame the Chair entirely for that.

I am not.

The Deputy has good broad shoulders.

I do not make any apology for asking questions in other Deputies' names because I am prohibited under the present system——

I am calling Question No. 3.

That is the explanation for the extraordinary degree of activity from the other side.