asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if he has received protests or representations from any African Governments, or any people from an African country, regarding the export of soap manufactured in this country which contains mercuric oxide.

I have not received any protest or representations of the kind referred to on this matter.

I would like to point out one of the anomalies of Question Time. Question No. 9 was taken with No. 46, yet in regard to Question No. 45, the related question in my name, No. 17, was not taken. I thought those questions were akin but it seems it does not work the other way around. The purpose of Question No. 47 is to ask the Minister whether he is aware that the Sunday Nation published in Kenya on 17 January last had an article which said that, “...demands ban on killer soap manufacture”. Included in this article is an exhortation to people in the consumers' association in Kenya and individuals to write to Mr. Albert Reynolds, TD, Minister for Industry and Commerce, Kildare Street, Dublin, protesting about the fact that Ireland, which is a friendly country as far as the writer of the article is concerned, is exporting to African countries something which they would not use themselves.

Hear, hear.

That is a matter of which I have no notice whatsoever and it might be addressed to my good colleague. I am sure there is an explanation. It is a matter between the Department of Industry and Commerce and the people to whom the Deputy refers. I will inquire about it but I am certainly not aware of it.

I am surprised that the Minister is not aware of it. Does he not think it is appalling that the major Sunday newspaper in Kenya carries this article about a friendly country like Ireland — a country which they looked to for a lead, a country to which a considerable amount of our aid goes and where there are 2,000 Irish citizens living. This article extended to over two pages and contained the name of a Minister of the Irish Government, protesting about some of the goods we are exporting there.

I will certainly inquire about the matter and the Deputy might also inquire from my colleague.

I think your colleague has already avoided answering——

That would seem to dispose of questions ordinary and priority questions for today. There are some ten minutes left before we come to deal with the Order of Business. What would the House like to decide?

I should like to raise on the Adjournment the announcement last night of the pending closure of St. Mary's Geriatric Hospital, Drogheda, and also the question of the non-payment of the Department of Health subvention to Drogheda Cottage Hospital, which cannot even pay staff wages at present.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I would like to raise on the Adjournment the question of the ongoing firemen's strike as it affects the country and city of Dublin, with particular reference to a recent fire in the Borough of Dun Laoghaire.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I refer to the Private Notice Question to the Taoiseach asking him if he would convey to the British Government through the British Ambassador to Ireland, the Irish Government's and the Dáil's concern over the proposal to make an announcement tonight making the Prevention of Terrorism Act permanent and requesting postponement of the announcement until discussions have taken place between the Governments. I regret, a Cheann Comhairle, that you sought to disallow that on the basis that a debate will be taking place in the House tomorrow. The debate taking place in the House tomorrow is of no interest in regard to the subject matter of this question because it was asking that something be done about postponing the announcement to be made tonight. I must say I cannot understand your ruling.

I am sorry if the Deputy feels aggrieved. I have conveyed my ruling to the Deputy and he has to accept it for the time being in any event.

A Cheann Comhairle, do you not accept the point I am making? I want the Government to do something today in relation to an announcement being made in the House of Commons tonight. Therefore, the debate tomorrow is no use to me in that regard.

My views have been conveyed to the Deputy. If he requires further elucidation my office is at his disposal. I have nothing further to add to it now.

Perhaps I am not making myself clear. My Private Notice Question requires the Government to do something today about an announcement to be made in the House of Commons.

That was taken into account.

You said you could not allow the question because of the debate tomorrow. There does not seem to be a logical reason for your refusal.

There are, in fact, good and cogent reasons for it if the Deputy will consult my office.

I would be grateful——

I would like to ask for guidance on a separate matter which arose today. I tabled two questions to the Taoiseach dealing, one way or another, with the role of the Attorney General. The first dealt with the Crotty judgment and the Single European Act which was regarded as being in order; the second which dealt with the Attorney General's functions under the Extradition Act was deemed to be transferred and out of order. I simply cannot understand how the Taoiseach can have responsibility——

I have no function in that matter, no function whatsoever.

In the few minutes available, I seek permission to raise on the Adjournment the reasons Ireland abstained on a resolution yesterday at the United Nations Human Rights Commission which condemned recent actions by Israeli security forces in the occupied territories of the West Bank and the Gaza Strip and which have led to the deaths of more than 50 Palestinians and the injuring of hundreds more.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I would like to pursue this matter. I am still not satisfied——

The Deputy may not pursue the matter now. I am sorry, Deputy. I do not propose to enter into argument with him. I repeat I have conveyed my views to him. If he requires any further elucidation he may consult my office. I am not prepared to have my decisions on these matters challenged in the House.

I bow to your ruling but I must say strongly that I disagree profoundly with your ruling on this matter. May I raise another matter? I asked a question today of the Minister for Tourism and Transport about a statement made by the Taoiseach on 5 February and your reply says that it cannot be answered because similar questions were answered on 29 October and 11 November. I cannot understand how the questions relating to a statement made by the Taoiseach on 5 February could have been answered in October or November.

I must ask the Deputy to desist from challenging my rulings in this fashion.

I regret to have to say that I find some of your rulings extraordinary and illogical.

They are in strict conformity with the rules, regulations and precedents of the House and there has been no deviation from that. I resent the implication of the Deputy's remarks. I would prefer the Deputy to pursue this matter in the normal way rather than that a slight should hang over the Chair in respect of his rulings on such matters.

I would not wish in any way to cast a slight over the Chair but I fail to see how a question relating to something that was said on 5 February could have been answered in October or November.

I have conveyed my rulings on this matter to the Deputy. They are in accordance with the precedents of the House and I should like to repeat that there has not been any deviation whatever from those precedents.

The ruling is extraordinary and you know it; it was quite ridiculous.

Does the House wish to proceed with the Order of Business? Agreed.