asked the Minister for Foreign Affairs if, as he has no direct contact with the Unionist Community, he will ask his co-chairman of the Anglo-Irish Conference to impress upon the leader of the DUP that his recent remarks about the GAA are unwarranted, inflammatory and could lead to more violence.

I believe the Deputy is referring to remarks made by the Leader of the Official Unionist Party last week. I fully agree that the remarks in question were regrettable and unwarranted. However, as the Government's views on the invaluable contribution of the GAA to society, North and South, are widely known. I would not normally consider it necessary or appropriate to respond to remarks of this kind.

Would the Taoiseach not consider that it is necessary to bring home to Mr. Molyneaux, the Leader of the Official Unionist party, the fact that remarks like that have the effect of fingering leading members of the GAA in the North for paramilitaries on the Loyalist side? It would be very helpful if the co-Chairman on this side of the Anglo-Irish Conference asked his fellow co-Chairman in the North to, at least in private, say to the two leaders in the North that they should not identify people who might become targets for gunmen on either side of the divide.

I am glad the Deputy put down this question and directed attention to it. I agree with what he says. In fact, one could go further and recall that there was another incident in which remarks were made about solicitors——

Correct.

——which had appalling and tragic consequences. On this side of the Border we are quite responsible in what we say about these matters. I think we are all very conscious in this House that even a casual remark, apart from a deliberate statement, can have unforeseen tragic consequences. I just wish that that aspect of matters was kept more in mind in other places.

I wish I could agree with everything the Taoiseach has said. He said we have always been careful about what we say. That is not true for all of us.

The time allocated for Priority Questions is now exhausted.

Most of us try to be careful most of the time.

We now must proceed to deal with ordinary questions.

On a point of order, once again today one of the five Priority Questions cannot be taken because we have run out of time. It was my understanding when we brought Priority Questions to the beginning of Question Time last session that the whole idea was that the spokesperson for every party would have at least one question answered on the floor of the House. I wish to give notice that I intend to raise this matter with the Whips and with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges.

The Chair does his best to dispose of all the questions on priority and continuously advises the House of the importance of co-operation towards that end but sometimes he does not receive the co-operation desired. I have sympathy with the Deputy.