asked the Taoiseach if it is intended to have any bilateral meeting with other EEC Ministers in preparation for the Dublin European Council meeting in November.

I have already met the British Prime Minister, the German Chancellor and the President of the Commission and intend meeting the Belgian Prime Minister after my return from an official visit to America next month at the invitation of President Carter. Any other meetings will be arranged as necessary.

Is the Taoiseach aware that at least one Prime Minister, the British Prime Minister, has stated that her objective at the Dublin summit will be to get a revision of the current rate of British contributions to the EEC budget?

That is a separate question.

It arises in regard to the preparations.

It does not arise on the question on the Order Paper.

Would the Taoiseach agree that this will have serious implications in terms of our contribution to the EEC budget? Would it not be in the interests of a successful Presidency that the Taoiseach should meet——

The Deputy cannot raise all the matters that may be raised at a meeting of this kind.

I have already said in my reply that I have met her.

I do not think that the Taoiseach has met her since she made it clear that she would be raising this at the Dublin summit.

I am calling the next question.

Has the Taoiseach discussed this subject with her?

Yes, of course.

The Taoiseach is prepared to meet her objectives of reducing the British contribution at the Dublin summit?

I did not say that.

3.

asked the Taoiseach if he has any priorities in policy for the Dublin European Council Meeting in November.

Yes—to ensure that the meeting is conducted as effectively as possible and that the interests of the Community and of Ireland are advanced.

Is the Taoiseach aware of the stated policy intentions of certain member Governments to revise the Community agricultural policy in a manner which would have serious economic implications for our economy? Would he agree that if there is this growing lessening of support for the CAP in its present form it would be to our national advantage over the period of our Presidency to seek to meet constructively some changes that may be pressed upon us later?

No individual member country has a right to reduce or change the CAP in any way. That would be a matter for the Community as a whole.

I am suggesting that to utilise the brief period of our Presidency to the national advantage would be to meet any changes that may prove inevitable hereafter and to utilise this period by seeking to inaugurate discussion on changes that may hereafter prove to be inevitable.

Is this because the Deputy's colleagues are voting for a change?

We know what has been done with the regional policy.

Could the Ceann Comhairle discourage Ministers and Deputies from interrupting the Taoiseach's reply?

I am calling on all Members in the House to cease interrupting.

Arising from the Taoiseach's reply and the fact that he has stated that they are working to advance our interests at present, is he aware, despite the fact that he is President of the Council of Ministers and the Minister for Agriculture, Deputy Gibbons, is President of the Council of Agricultural Ministers, that cattle and milk prices are collapsing and that the regional fund has been reduced by £200 million? Is that working in the interests of Ireland?

That is irrelevant.

May I ask the Taoiseach whether his unwillingness to answer Deputy O'Leary's question stems from the absence of any Government strategy——

I was about to do so. I have just said that Deputy L'Estrange's question was irrelevant and I was about to answer Deputy O'Leary when Deputy FitzGerald rushed in. It was not necessary as I was going to do it anyway.

The Taoiseach has already refused to answer Deputy O'Leary's question.

No, I said I would wait until I heard Deputy L'Estrange's question. In answer to Deputy O'Leary, I can assure him that the Government are fully committed to maintaining the common agricultural policy of the EEC in its fullest possible context.

Order. The Taoiseach should be allowed to answer the question.

A Fianna Fáil Government negotiated our entry into the EEC and I can assure the Deputy that we are determined to protect the interests of all aspects and all sectors of our economy.

Can the Taoiseach say in a more specific way the strategy he proposes to pursue in view of the problems posed by the 1 per cent VAT limit at present on the contribution to the EEC?

Before the Taoiseach replies, I should like to say that all the questions that could arise under this subject would keep us here for a long time and the Chair will not permit deviations from the original question.

Would the Deputy repeat the question?

I want an answer from the Taoiseach.

The Ceann Comhairle interrupted the Deputy before he was finished. If he lets me hear the question I will try to reply as best I can.

We cannot do business like this. I asked a straightforward question and I want to get a straightforward answer.

The Ceann Comhairle interrupted the Deputy and I did not hear the latter part of the question.

I do not recall the Ceann Comhairle interrupting me before I finished.

If the Deputy is unwilling to repeat the question, there is no point in making a——

The basis of the supplementary question was whether the Taoiseach would accept that certain member states now have very grave recently-expressed reservations about the continuation of the CAP in its present form, and whether our period of Presidency should have been used to the national advantage in meeting constructively the sought for changes. Since there is a ceiling of 1 per cent on VAT revenue there is no possibility of reaching it. This increases the pressure for changing the CAP, and the Taoiseach's earlier commitment to preserving the CAP will not be possible to maintain in these circumstances.

Is the Deputy aware of the difficulties that could arise when the 1 per cent VAT limit is reached?

On a point of order, I should like to ask whether it is in order for the Ceann Comhairle, when not ruling the reply out of order, to interrupt on two successive occasions before the Taoiseach had a chance to reply? This seems to lead to great disorder rather than order. I feel that, when the Chair wishes to rule a question out of order, he should do so; but to interrupt when it is not out or order is unhelpful.

The questions that are being asked now are all out of order. If I permitted the business to go on in this fashion, we could wind up discussing every conceivable subject.

The system normally adopted is that the Ceann Comhairle either rules a question——

The leader of the Opposition seems to be in the business of attacking everybody. He had a go at RTE and at the Secretary of my Department and now he wishes to attack the Chair.

Order.

I suggest that order is best preserved if the Ceann Comhairle rules out of order what is out of order and allows questions that are in order to be answered. Other procedures do create confusion in the House.

The Deputy is well aware that the Ceann Comhairle cannot prevent a person who insists on being disorderly from being disorderly.

I regard as disorderly the Ceann Comhairle interrupting the question and then telling the Taoiseach to answer it.

I listened to the question which I easily discerned as widening the subject to a great extent. The Taoiseach was about to answer the question when I made my statement. I then permitted him to answer if he wished, pointing out that it was not in order.

I have heard Deputy Blaney asking a supplementary question which ran into two columns, and get away with it, when it had nothing to do with the original question; and everybody in the House knows that that is true.

If the Deputy repeats the question I will answer it now.

I should not have to repeat the question and I should not have been interrupted. The question I asked related to whether the Government have any strategy to deal with the problems which could arise when the 1 per cent VAT limit is reached.

Since the British Prime Minister, Mrs. Thatcher, was already invoked today, she said that it would be a poor general who would disclose his tactics before the battle.

Has the Taoiseach got a strategy to deal with this, even if he does not wish to disclose it?

I have, of course.

We look forward to seeing it in action.