asked the Taoiseach if he intends having any contact with Northern Unionists prior to the next Anglo-Irish Summit meeting with the British Prime Minister.

23.

asked the Taoiseach whether he will be making any further policy statements prior to the next Anglo-Irish Summit meeting with the British Prime Minister.

I propose, with the permission of the Ceann Comhairle, to take Questions Nos. 22 and 23 together.

As the date of the next Summit meeting has not yet been settled, it is not possible for me to indicate the statements or contacts I will be making in advance of it. The Deputy can be assured, however, that I will, from time to time as the need arises, take any action and maintain any contacts necessary to foster better understanding with all sections of the community in the North of Ireland.

Would the Taoiseach agree that he suffers an unfortunate reputation within Northern Ireland, especially among the Unionist population there? Would he agree that if his efforts to achieve better understanding between both parts of the country are to be successful, it would be advisable for him to make contact with representatives of the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland?

Since I do not accept the initial premise, the rest of the question does not arise. There are a few places where the Deputy's own reputation is not great at present.

I think Deputy O'Leary got under somebody's skin there.

I am trying to deal with a matter which the Taoiseach regards as a priority for his Government.

So he said.

Does the Taoiseach accept the need for fresh contact to be made between him and representatives in Northern Ireland who disagree with him on policy on the Irish question? Would the Taoiseach agree that there devolves on him unilateral responsibility to make such contacts and not to await events and suggest that he is not interested in such contacts?

I never miss an opportunity of making such contacts.

Has the Taoiseach any such plans under consideration at present? Has he issued any invitations to meetings to such elements in Northern Ireland?

It is an on-going process.

What does "on-going process" mean? It is a form of mumbo jumbo.

I assume the Deputy is talking about contacts with individuals in Northern Ireland. This is something in which I constantly engage and will continue as the opportunity arises.

Would the Taoiseach not accept, as we discovered when we came into office, that such contacts had not continued on any serious basis during the four years prior to our period of office and that such contacts which had been made and developed among the Unionist community had been allowed to wither during those four years? Does he propose to let that happen again?

I do not accept that and I discovered when I assumed office that Deputy FitzGerald's policy in regard to Northern Ireland was nil.

Since the Taoiseach is prepared to talk about Ireland in the United States to people who are interested only on a particular day in the year, does he not consider it reasonable as leader of the nation at present that he should invite people of the other tradition to talk about a problem which, unless it is tackled now, will go on until such time as it will be impossible to resolve? Would he not consider extending invitations to groups of Northern Unionists to come and talk to him or indicate that he would accept an invitation from them to attend talks?

Yes.

A final supplementary.

Would the Taoiseach agree—and this is a matter of observation—that his own attitudes on violence are regarded as ambivalent by sections of the Unionist population in Northern Ireland? That is a matter of record. Would he agree——

I reject that.

That certainly is public opinion within Northern Ireland.

I resent such statements being made by the Deputy in the form of a question.

Would the Taoiseach agree in those circumstances that it would be helpful to seek meetings with those elements in Northern Ireland? It is noteworthy that during his recent visit to the United States he did not condemn those elements there who support violence within this country. Would he, therefore, agree that it is important to seek meetings with Unionists in Northern Ireland?

I regret that this Dáil should open on this note and I am disciplining myself from being rather severe on the Deputy with regard to the sort of contacts which he might or might not have kept while he was Tánaiste. The records show—and there is ample evidence to prove it—that during my previous stewardship as Taoiseach the record of the security forces in combating violence North and South of the Border was impeccable.

I would ask the Taoiseach why he appears during his visit to the United States not to have called on people there to refrain from supporting violence or people involved in violence and why he confined himself to the extraordinarily anodyne statement "A small number of people in this country have subscribed to activities which can only delay the achievement of that unity. Many of these are simply misguided". Can the Taoiseach recall any precedent for any Taoiseach or Minister speaking on that subject in the United States and not seeking the support of the people against violence?

I think the Deputy is endeavouring to be mischievous and irresponsible.

By quoting the Taoiseach.

The intervention which I made in the United States on this occasion has been widely regarded by everybody as entirely beneficial from the point of view of the interests of this country and the unity of our people.

This view is not shared everywhere, including Washington. Would the Taoiseach please answer my question about his failure to call on people in the United States not to support violence as the first Taoiseach——

I have already made my position in regard to violence in this country and the support of violence from the United States clear on many occasions.

Why not in the United States on this occasion?

I have already made it clear on a number of occasions and my position in regard to it is well known.

Why did the Taoiseach drop it on this occasion?

It did not arise on this occasion.

Was that because Deputy Blaney told the Taoiseach he was not to say it?

The Deputy should control himself. Deputy FitzGerald is being grossly irresponsible as he has been for the last six months. Now that the matter has come up I want to avail of this opportunity to say that the primary objective of my going to the United States on this occasion was to endeavour to repair the economic and social damage done by Deputy FitzGerald, Deputy Michael O'Leary and Deputy John Kelly.

May I say that the Taoiseach's failure for the first time to make such a call was noted in Washington?

The Deputy knows as much now——

I have called Question No. 24. Could I ask the Taoiseach to reply to it? I have allowed an unlimited number of supplementaries. Could I have the reply to Question No. 24?

Instead of lecturing our civil servants abroad——

The Coalition Government as far as the United States is concerned could only be described as national sabotage.

24.

asked the Taoiseach if he will express his attitude to the creation of a Parliamentary tier in the context of the Anglo-Irish Inter-Governmental Council as provided in the last Anglo-Irish Summit meeting held in London.

As I indicated in the Dáil on 9 March I attach great importance to the development of the Anglo-Irish structure and to the incorporation of an effective parliamentary tier in that structure. Such a tier would provide a forum in which public representatives could be involved in the evolution of all aspects of the totality of relationships within these islands.

The Government would wish to see such a parliamentary tier established at the earliest possible opportunity.

Does the Taoiseach have any views on how representatives on all sides in Northern Ireland are to be included in this parliamentary tier? Has the Taoiseach any views on that?

There are several possible alternative ways in which representatives in Northern Ireland could be included in such a parliamentary tier. One way would be simply for the political parties to nominate representatives. Another way would be for an election to be held specifically for that purpose. I do not believe that the selection of such people should in any way inhibit the establishment of such a parliamentary tier.

Would the Taoiseach agree that a fresh selection process would be advisable if this parliamentary tier is to be made effective?

My own preference would be for a particular election with a view to electing people for this particular purpose.

The remaining questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

Could I seek clarification from you as to why Question No. 163 in my name, which was submitted to the Taoiseach, and which asked if he would express his Government's concern at the reported increase in the incidents of personation during the recent general election and if he would make a statement on the matter, has been transferred to the Minister for Justice? You will appreciate that the views of the Taoiseach on this subject are of particular interest to the House.

It is a matter for the Minister in question to decide who should take responsibility for answering the question. It is not a matter for the Chair.

Do I understand that the Taoiseach declined to answer it and fobbed it off on the Minister for Justice?

It is collective Cabinet responsibility.

Was it the Taoiseach's decision not to answer this question?

I am not responsible for that. It is not a matter for the Chair as to which Minister will reply to a parliamentary question.

The transfer was not questioned.

It is not a point of order.

On a point of order, I would like to thank you for the courteous letter you wrote to me, which I received today, disallowing my question with regard to the Government's intention in relation to the 50,000 housewives who have applied for the £9.60 weekly allowance——

I cannot discuss disallowed questions now. The Deputy is quite entitled to come to my office and I will give some explanation with my officials as to why it was disallowed.

I am not clear about certain matters which were referred to the Adjournment. Questions Nos. 1 to 14 were referred to the Adjournment.

Deputy O'Keeffe told me he wished to raise the content of those questions on the Adjournment and I said I would communicate with the Deputy.

If I wish to pursue a particular matter can I do so in relation to this?

I will have to consider the matter.