It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 11, 12 and 18. It is also proposed that statements be made now by the Taoiseach and a spokesperson for each of the parties in Opposition on the Aughnacloy shooting and related matters. Each statement shall not exceed 20 minutes and the Taoiseach may make a statement in reply not exceeding ten minutes.

It is further proposed that No. 1 be taken without debate. Private Members' Business shall be No. 46.

Are the proposals in regard to statements acceptable to the House?

On the question of statements I want to repeat, a Cheann Comhairle, something which I said to you at the beginning of Question Time. I find it curious, to say the least and not at all helpful for the process of debate in this House, that you should have ruled out a question from me on the subject matter of these statements.

It is hardly necessary to repeat this for the second time today. It is quite unnecessary.

We are now about to discuss an incident which has a high degree of importance in a number of contexts in this country. In the course of his statement the Taoiseach will give information to the House which will be useful to the House and which will help leaders of other parties and me to make more constructive contributions on the issue before us. The process of ruling questions out of order simply because there are to be statements is totally unhelpful to the business of this House.

The Deputy has made his point adamantly and we will not have repetition.

Will the Taoiseach take on board the unhappiness of my party with the procedure of having statements for dealing with an issue, where as Deputy Dukes pointed out there are many issues to which all of us would like to hear answers. This mechanism of statements which does not allow for pursuit of any kind, does not do justice to the serious concern we have. In future my party will be looking for something a little more serious in terms of debate and an opportunity to pursue issues, than what are sometimes rather bland statements which do not allow for detailed question and answer.

I accept that the Taoiseach had no sinister intent in offering to make a full statement rather than answering a large number of questions individually. I originally put my question down as a Special Notice Question and it was disallowed last Wednesday on the grounds that it did not have the requisite degree of urgency. It was then in for oral reply today but it was disallowed subsequently after the Taoiseach had indicated that he would make a statement. Although I accept that the Taoiseach did not intend it, that means that from now on, on that precedent any Minister confronted with a barrage of unwelcome questions can avoid the usual grilling he would get here by simply offering to make a statement under Order 41. That is unacceptable.

I will make my position clear. Originally I indicated that I thought the best way to facilitate the House was for me to take the questions and give something in the nature of a substantive reply to the questions. Subsequently it was indicated that the House would prefer statements. I accepted that suggestion by the parties but then it was suggested that statements were unsatisfactory in that they did not give me an opportunity to reply to points made by Leaders of the parties in their statements, so I went further again and on this occasion we are introducing a new provision whereby when all the Leaders make their statements I will have ten minutes in which to specifically reply to points made in Leaders' statements. That is being very fair on my part.

There is a question which Deputy O'Malley intended raising but which was disallowed by the Chair. It was a specific question, and even with respect to the Taoiseach, and I accept that he is introducing a new provision for a tenminute reply, the facts are that there is no obligation on the Taoiseach to answer any of the questions raised and no normal facility for pursuing as we would in supplementary questions, the kind of issues which are at the heart of this debate. The ten minute reply is perhaps of assistance but it is not adequate, and in future it will not be sufficient.

Are the proposals in respect of the statement agreed? Agreed. Is it agreed that No. 1 be taken without debate? Agreed.

On the Order of Business I would bring to the attention of the Chair my dissatisfaction in relation to Questions this week. My dissatisfaction relates to the manner in which a priority question of mine which was down to the Minister for Industry and Commerce was dealt with by the General Office which the Chair supervises. My dissatisfaction relates not to the fact that the Minister had refused to answer the question even though I know he had negotiations with the people mentioned in the question, but to the fact that the refusal was only conveyed to me yesterday despite the fact that the question was down since last Tuesday. At this point, I have no option in relation to getting a priority question for tomorrow to the Minister for Industry and Commerce. That is totally unsatisfactory. My question was down in adequate time and the General Office had plenty of time to reply to me without leaving it as late as yesterday.

I will have the matter investigated.

On the Order of Business, I would ask the Minister for Labour or the Minister for Social Welfare what action they intend to take on a statement made in Cork last Thursday might by Archbishop Dermot Clifford when he suggested in effect what is the introduction of an emigration incentive scheme——

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

The Minister for Labour said that he would give the matter serious consideration.

The Deputy must find another time for raising this question.

I would like to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy in respect of that.

Will the Taoiseach ask the Minister for Justice to make a statement in this House relating to the incident that occurred on Friday evening last when over 200 cars had their tyres slashed in south Dublin. Will the Minister make a statement——

The Deputy should put down a question in respect of that matter.

——regarding the wholesale intimidation that is taking place in south Dublin?

It is not in order now, Deputy Shatter. Deputy Shatter knows that.

On a point of order——

Deputy Shatter, I have ruled the matter out of order. I will not accept a point of order.

I want to raise a separate point of order.

What is it?

The matter on which I just requested that a statement be made is one among four separate issues——

Deputy Shatter, I will not allow my rulings to be circumvented by you.

You will resume your seat.

I am trying to get clarification.

Deputy Shatter, resume your seat, please.

On the Order of Business, may I ask the Taoiseach if he will bring forward as a matter of urgency the promised review of the Restrictive Practices (Amendment) Bill, 1987 as it relates to below cost selling, and include poultry and vegetables which are now——

That is hardly a matter for the Order of Business.

On the Order of Business, with regard to forthcoming legislation, can the Taoiseach indicate whether he intends to bring forward legislation to deal with the whole area of gaming machines and the illegal activity in relation to them——

I am not aware that that matter is before the House in any shape or form.

——and the fact that the financial limits on gaming machines are not being complied with? Does the Taoiseach have any intention of bringing forward legislation?

There is no legislation planned in this area?

I said that no legislation was promised and therefore the Deputy is out of order and he knows it.

You are planning it but you are not promising it?

I am calling on the Taoiseach to make a statement.