asked the Taoiseach if he will furnish details of all schemes under way or under consideration by the Government which would help to work towards the achievement of the major national objective of a united island of Ireland by consent and by peaceful reconciliation.

I dealt with this question in my address to the Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheis on 18 February. I have arranged to have copies of that address placed in the Library for the information of Deputies.

Could I ask the Taoiseach if the Government have given any consideration to or made any assessment of the full political, economic and social implications of Irish unity?

That is an exercise which has engaged our party in Government and in Opposition and it still engages our attention in a very significant way.

Would the Taoiseach not agree that, since his party have been in existence for over 50 years, they should have concluded that by now? What I am asking is : have the Government made a complete assessment of the full implications of unity in the economic and social sphere?

I have indicated to the Deputy already that this matter is continuously under consideration. I might say, it is not a question of schemes as in Deputy Keating's question. It is a whole amalgam of the development of policies of every Government who have been in power in this part of the country since the State was set up.

Is it the Taoiseach's intention to publish a White Paper on the considerations of the Government——

We are getting on to new ground now.

Would the Taoiseach answer the supplementary regarding the publication of a White Paper?

I do not think the time is appropriate for the publication of a White Paper.

Could the Taoiseach enumerate very briefly some of the main areas where he feels economic, social and other Government policies might be useful in working towards the national objective I have in mind?

We cannot have a debate now.

I am asking him if he would be kind enough to answer that rather than merely giving the very brief answer he gave. I am not in the habit of listening too closely to Fianna Fáil Ard-Fheiseanna, as the Taoiseach might appreciate. I was hoping he might be able to enumerate some of the principal areas at slightly greater length than he did.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Before the Taoiseach answers that, might I ask him whether he thinks a satisfactory way of answering this important question on the Order Paper is to refer the House to a statement which he made as Leader of a political party to a gathering of that political party outside the House? I ask that question in all seriousness.

I can appreciate the point the Deputy is making, but I think he will also appreciate that a parliamentary question or the answer thereto is hardly the appropriate vehicle to outline all the approaches successive Governments have made to this problem. As I indicated already, it is an amalgam of policies and the development of policies over a wide range—for example, the rate of economic growth in this part of the country as compared with Northern Ireland, the rate of welfare, the nature of any constitutional change which might be necessary or seem to be necessary from time to time. The Deputy will appreciate that, if I gave a very comprehensive answer, it would take up a lot of time anyway. I think he will agree that a parliamentary question and answer system is not the appropriate way to consider matters of this nature.

(Cavan-Monaghan): If I may say so, what worries me is the principle at stake.

A question, Deputy.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Does the Taoiseach think it is a satisfactory or proper way to answer a question on this major national issue——

The Deputy asked that question.

(Cavan-Monaghan): Yes, but did I not get an answer referring to a statement made outside the House which is not in the possession of anybody in the House and so people in the House have not got an opportunity to put supplementary questions arising out of it?

I said already I appreciated the point the Deputy made. It is common practice here in a matter of this nature, which requires a comprehensive answer anyway, that if such a comprehensive statement has been made in the recent past, reference is made and attention is drawn to that comprehensive statement. That was the most recent and the most comprehensive statement I made before today. I thought it was reasonably appropriate to refer Deputies to that statement.

(Cavan-Monaghan): I think there are precedents on both sides of the House where replies have run into 17 pages.

This question was tabled initially to the Minister for Economic Planning and Development and it was not intended for the Taoiseach.

Precisely.

All I really asked was that the Taoiseach should enumerate some of the headings. I am conscious of the fact that the Taoiseach could not go into a lenghty statement lasting half an hour. It was reasonable to ask that question and the reply has not met any of the criteria I would have expected.

The Taoiseach has answered the question. That is argument.

Could I ask the Taoiseach have the Government a current assessment of the implications I spoke about?

Of course we have a current assessment. These current assessments naturally are brought up to date as week follows week and month follows month. That is continuing.