asked the Taoiseach his plans for the creation of a forum in which the social partners may negotiate the terms of a national plan for recovery; and the way in which this forum will differ from the existing NESC in composition, function and resources.

The measures set out in our general election Programme for National Recovery will form the basis of the Government's economic policy and our efforts to revitalise the national economy.

I intend to consult regularly with the social partners and other interests and seek their support and their suggestions for other development measures to complement or supplement our proposals and to receive their co-operation and assistance.

As I indicated in this House on 10 March last I am separately arranging to meet with the members of the National Economic and Social Council at an early date to discuss with them in greater detail the findings and recommendations of their report, A Strategy for Development.

Will the Taoiseach answer the question I put to him which was to tell us the way the new forum will differ in its functions and composition from the NESC?

I do not understand the question. The forum which I propose for discussion will be the normal process of consultation between the Government and the social partners, a process which was more honoured in the breach than the observance by the previous Government.

The Taoiseach is being inaccurate.

We propose to resume a fairly active programme of consultation with the social partners — the trade unions, employers and other representative organisations. At the same time NESC, the special body established by the House, will continue to perform their own special functions.

Is it not the case that in the election manifesto of his party the Taoiseach promised a specific forum and not the normal process of consultations. A "forum" means a body in which more than two parties are present for discussions and I should like to know if the Taoiseach is now telling the House that it is not his intention to establish a forum but merely to engage in the normal process of consultation Governments have every day with various social interests?

"Forum" is a word which can be interpreted differently but, as far as I am concerned, the process I have outlined is a satisfactory one. Indeed, I am sorry the previous Government did not avail more frequently of it because there is enormous goodwill among employers and trade unionists. There is a fairly common desire to reach a consensus at least on economic and social objectives, whatever about the methods. By "forum" I mean a constant process of consultation with the social partners and others. Of course, NESC will continue to exercise their very important role and, as the Deputy is aware, they have brought forward a very important report on which there was general agreement in the House and outside.

Do I take it from the Taoiseach's reply that the provision in the Fianna Fáil manifesto which promised the creation of a forum — a very specific promise — in which the social partners could negotiate the terms of a national plan for recovery has been abandoned in favour of the normal process of consultation and the continued operation of the NESC? Will the Taoiseach agree that probably that is a sensible decision on the part of the Government but, notwithstanding its sense, it represents a significant departure from what his party said before the election?

I find it difficult to know what is bothering the Deputy. The process I have outlined is completely satisfactory from my point of view, from that of the social partners and, I am sure, from the Deputy's.

Why did the Taoiseach make a promise before the election?

We are worried about the Taoiseach's credibility.

May I put a question to the Taoiseach? I offered earlier to put a question to him.

I am calling the next question and the Deputy should resume his seat.

On a point of order, I must point out that I offered to put a supplementary question to the Taoiseach.

That is not a point of order; I am calling the next question.

May I make a point of order?

If it is a point of order the Deputy may make it.

I offered on two occasions to put a supplementary question to the Taoiseach and I should like an explanation from the Chair as to why he did not allow other Deputies to put supplementaries to the Taoiseach?

I do not have to explain my decision to the Deputy and I am calling the next question.

I wish to give notice of my intention to raise the subject matter of this question on the Adjournment so that I may express my regret to the Taoiseach for the ruling of the Chair on this matter.

I will communicate with the Deputy.