asked the Taoiseach the sequence of steps which he envisages as necessary to secure his reported objective of a unitary State on this island; and the role he sees for the Anglo-Irish Agreement in this process.

Paragraph 5.7 of the report of the New Ireland Forum, which was endorsed by all the parties participating, states:

The particular structure of political unity which the Forum would wish to see established is a unitary state, achieved by agreement and consent, embracing the whole island of Ireland and providing irrevocable guarantees for the protection and preservation of both the nationalist and unionist identities.

It is not possible, at Question Time, to attempt to set out any exhaustive set of steps towards achievement of the form of unity wished for by the parties to the Forum, except to say that such measures would in my view have to meet the requirements set out in chapter 5 of the Forum report.

These requirements would, among others, include:

a total cessation of violence which can have no place in the building of the Ireland of the future that we all desire;

constructive dialogue with Unionists in Northern Ireland;

accommodation of the two traditions, their aspirations and their loyalties;

an all-round constitutional conference to formulate new structures.

This Government's policy and actions under the Anglo-Irish Agreement are in accordance with those requirements.

Would the Taoiseach not agree that his quotation from the New Ireland Forum report has been only partial? I know he cannot quote all of chapter 5. Would he not also agree that the specifications set out in article 1 of the Anglo-Irish Agreement are perfectly compatible with that wish expressed in the Forum report? Would he not further agree, therefore, that the very objectives set out in article 1 of the agreement are perfectly consistent with working towards the objective of a unitary State?

The article in question is subject to different interpretations, perhaps more of emphasis than anything else. Basically I would not disagree with the Deputy.

That being the case, would the Taoiseach not agree that suggestions that we should pursue a path that is aside or separate from the Anglo-Irish Agreement at this stage would be counterproductive?

Not necessarily. The Deputy would have to advert to the fact that representatives of the Unionist traditions are not prepared to accept the processes of the Anglo-Irish Agreement at this stage at any rate. Therefore, if we want to have dialogue with them in any shape or form or in any context, it would have to be outside the process of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and in parallel with it, but certainly not in contradiction to it. I agree with the Deputy on that point.

Would the Taoiseach not accept that first of all the existence of the Anglo-Irish Agreement in itself objectively has been the only factor that has brought about a degree of movement in terms of the Unionist political position? Would he not also agree that, even though the processes of the agreement as they are now known and regarded by the Unionists might not be acceptable, certain other processes and objectives to which he has himself referred are not looked upon with any great enthusiasm by the Unionist tradition in Northern Ireland?

Yes, but I do not think the Deputy would push the matter so far as to say that we should not have any dialogue with any representative of the Unionist tradition outside the Anglo-Irish Agreement. That would be an unnecessarily restrictive position to adopt. It would have to be done without taking from the processes of the Anglo-Irish Agreement.

Since the Taoiseach mentioned that respect for the aspirations of both communities is fundamental to the New Ireland report, could he indicate any acts done by his Government during the past 12 months working in that direction to show respect for the aspirations of the Unionist community?

I suppose the most recent one is my invitation to representatives of the Unionist tradition to let me know what their concerns are.

I can assure the Taoiseach that I do not wish to push certain arguments, all the more so since the scope of my questions to the Taoiseach has been very substantially restricted by the Ceann Comhairle in disallowing three other questions I had put down. Would the Taoiseach not agree that the business of dialogue with representatives of the Unionist parties and the Unionist tradition, necessary as it is, which must for the moment be carried on outside the framework of the Anglo-Irish Agreement should not in any way put in jeopardy the objectives of the agreement itself?

I have already said that any dialogue of the kind we would all wish to take place can and should take place without taking from the Anglo-Irish Agreement processes in any way.

I am calling Deputy Cooney for a final supplementary.

I wish to put a brief supplementary question.

I have dwelt rather long on this Question but I will allow Deputy Barry to put a brief supplementary question.

Does the Taoiseach see the Anglo-Irish Agreement as an impediment to dialogue with Unionists?

No.

This is the second time the Taoiseach has referred in the House to his invitation to the Unionists to come and discuss with him whatever problems they have. Has he formally put this to them or is this invitation just a response to a journalist's question at a news conference about a month or five weeks ago? Has he used the channels available to him to issue a formal invitation to Unionists to come to see him?

I have dealt with that matter several times in this House. The Deputy is not being very accurate or fair in saying that in issuing this invitation I was only responding to journalists. I issued the invitation at the most important platform available to me from the point of view of my party, that is our Ard Fheis, which was given full publicity.

The Taoiseach also referred to it prior to that.

Subsequently I elaborated on it in this House. It was not just a reply to journalists' questions. I also indicated that in my judgment at this stage I would prefer to leave it at that rather than take the step of issuing some sort of formal invitation which might not be the best step to take at this point.

I am calling the next question.

Mr. T. Fitzpatrick rose.

I am sorry Deputy, I have called the next question.

The Chair must be obeyed in such matters.