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.