It is proposed to take item No. 11.

Is the Tánaiste in a position to say whether the debate which it was agreed to have on the Middle East situation will be held next Tuesday? Is that the intention?

I am not in a position to say. What the Taoiseach said last Wednesday was that on his return he would be in touch with the Deputy, through the Party Whips, with a view to discussing that matter.

I thought the discussion would take place on his return. I got a different impression because it was agreed there was urgency about the question and in view of his imminent departure it was not possible to have the debate then. The assumption was that the debate would be held shortly after his return and I want an assurance it will be held immediately after his return next Tuesday. Perhaps the matter could be discussed between the Whips?

My understanding of what the Taoiseach said is exactly as I have outlined.

Is the Tánaiste suggesting that the Whips may not discuss next week's business in relation to this matter until the Taoiseach's return?

I am not suggesting that. Yesterday the Whips had long discussions on next week's business.

My understanding was that the Taoiseach assured us that this matter would be debated urgently on his return next week, but the Tánaiste seemed to suggest that the discussion on when that debate may take place could not occur until after the Taoiseach returns next week. That is not my understanding and I would like an assurance that the Whips can now discuss when this discussion may take place, and it is our wish that it take place next Tuesday.

It is my understanding that the discussion will take place on the Taoiseach's return but that does not rule out any possibility of discussing it with the Whips.

That is a most obscure statement.

It is the same as the Deputy's request.

I am not quite clear where we stand. Can we have a plain statement? The Whips may now discuss arrangements for the debate which we were told would take place immediately on the Taoiseach's return, and our intention is that it will take place next Tuesday. Could I have an assurance that that discussion will take place with a view to taking a decision on it today?

As the Deputy said that the debate will take place on Tuesday, then his assumption that there is a necessity for the Whips to meet does not arise.

The Tánaiste is deliberately being stupid, and he is anything but stupid.

I know it was not meant, but in case of a misunderstanding would the Deputy please withdraw that remark?

The Tánaiste is simulating an obtuseness which is not part of his character. Is that all right, Sir?

That is permitted.

I am not saying there has been agreement for the debate to be held next Tuesday; I am saying there was agreement that there would be a debate at an early stage after the Taoiseach's return and therefore a discussion between the Whips could take place. I propose that discussion take place today with a view to agreeing to it being held next week, which I would like to be Tuesday.

The labels Deputy FitzGerald attaches to me would be more appropriate to himself in relation to the point he is raising. My understanding of what took place here on Wednesday morning was that on the Taoiseach's return this matter would be discussed between the Whips.

The record would not stand up to that interpretation. Is the Tánaiste saying we cannot now discuss and agree on next week's business? That is the first time I have heard that in this House.

No, that is not right, nor am I saying the Whips cannot discuss other matters now.

I take it that if the Tánaiste is saying they cannot that in an obscure way he is saying they can. Therefore, we can discuss and reach agreement today on next week's business, including this debate. The answer "yes" in the beginning would have saved all this.

On the Order of Business, do the Government intend to proceed any further with item No. 15, Postal and Telecommunications Services Bill?

It is already agreed between the whips that it will be taken on Tuesday.

There is another matter which I would like to raise as a matter of urgency and I would ask for guidance on it. There are press reports that the town of Tipperary was taken over yesterday, despite the presence of armed police, I wonder if the Government intend to make a statement on the circumstances under which this happened? It has alarmed people that this could happen when we have armed gardaí. The reports may be incorrect but there should be some immediate clarification of the position.

If they are incorrect then by assumption——

I am asking for clarification of press reports which are causing alarm.

I am asking whether it is proposed to make a statement on the reported takeover of the town of Tipperary despite the alleged presence of armed gardaí.

I have allowed that question to be asked.

And I am waiting for an answer.

I do not think the Order of Business is the appropriate place to discuss interpretations of press reports.

The Ceann Comhairle allowed the question to be asked. He is in the Chair, not the Tánaiste.

I have given the answer.

Do the Government intend to make a statement?

At this stage the answer is no.

In that case I will put down a Private Notice Question.

That is normal procedure.

That is what we did when we were in Opposition.

We are discussing the Estimate for the Department of Justice today and it could be raised then.

That is the question I have been asking but I was told that even though a debate may take place today a statement will not be made. I propose to put down a Private Notice Question.

Not for answer today. There can be no questions or matters raised on the Adjournment today, only.

Could you guide me in regard to how I should proceed because in my view before the weekend the people are entitled to clarification and reassurance on this matter. What steps should I take to ensure that?

The only steps, as I see it, available to you or to any Member here is to raise the matter on the Estimate for the Department of Justice today.

But if the Estimate is not reached today, what then?

There are no other measures available today. There can be no questions raised on the Adjournment today.

If some grave situation arose, such as the country being invaded, what would be the proper procedure for discussing that in this House today?

The Dáil is meeting only for the special purpose of discussing these Estimates.

When the Dáil is in session and something happens of an urgent and alarming character, procedures ought to allow of its being raised in this House. I would like guidance on how that could be done.

I agree with the Deputy, but unfortunately there is no provision for that. I agree that situations like this have arisen over and over again and there is nothing in Standing Orders to allow for them. However, today not even a Private Notice Question can be raised on the Adjournment, nothing but the Estimates.

No matter what happens, the Government can sit mum and refuse to answer questions, no matter how grave the situation is. That is what they are doing.

Earlier this week when the unemployment figures were published, there was no accompanying Government statement. Is it the intention that a Government statement will appear, on account of the alarming unemployment situation?

In relation to that question, the Finance Bill is being discussed. These points can be raised and I will reply to them at the end of the debate.

To my knowledge at any rate, unemployment figures are always accompanied by a relevant statement from the Minister responsible. This did not happen on this occasion. Is it the intention that this will be rectified?

I said that it will be rectified in the way which I have outlined.

In other words, the position is that from now on there will not necessarily be any accompanying Government statement — is that the position?

No.

On the Order of Business, could the Tánaiste clarify the position regarding the reopening of Clondalkin Paper Mills, whether legislation is required for such reopening and, if so, when this legislation will come before the House?

May I ask the Tánaiste—

I call on the Tánaiste.

Discussions are continuing with the Minister and groups concerned.

I call on Deputy MacMahon. I am sorry, Deputy Fennell, but this is legislation promised and Deputy MacMahon is permitted to raise this point.

It was over-promised. The Clondalkin Paper Mills were supposed to open two days ago, according to a Government undertaking prior to the election. Indeed, the Taoiseach assured the Clondalkin Paper Mills workers outside Neilstown Church on the Sunday prior to the by-election in west County Dublin that the mills would open on 9 June. That has not happened and a meeting has been called of all the workers of the Clondalkin Paper Mills for Monday next. Many of these workers have been in touch with me and with many other public representatives. They are up in the clouds as to what the position is. Would the Tánaiste make a statement as to what the position is, so that at least the workers will know before they have their meeting and take action, action which might not otherwise be necessary?

The Deputy has been told that discussions are still in progress. I call on Deputy Fennell.

I would like to put on record that Government information with regard to the problems arising in the District Court, with specific reference to barring orders for battered wives, is very inadequate. I would like the Tánaiste to know that this is so and ask if he could possibly get his Minister to arrange some emergency provisions for women applying for barring orders at the moment. I am sorry that I cannot raise this matter in a Private Notice Question or on the Adjournment today, but will do so next week.