It is proposed to take business in the following order: Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 16 (resumed), 17 and 18. Private Members' Business will be taken between 7 p.m. and 8.30 p.m., and will be Item No. 37 (resumed).

On a point of information, like many other Deputies, I am extremely concerned with the statement in the media with regard to the blatant interference — and if the reports are correct — the admitted interference of the former Minister for Justice in Garda affairs. The situation is scandalous. I would hope that the Leader of the Opposition would make a statement.

We are on the Order of Business. You cannot discuss this. I am asking you to resume your seat.

I would like to ask the Minister for Justice if he will have an inquiry into this. It is a matter of grave public concern.

It is not in order at present.

I would like to ask the Taoiseach if he will allow Government time for a debate on the Eighth Amendment to the Constitution (Divorce) Bill, 1982 submitted by The Workers' Party. I admit that it will not be possible in this session.

We have no opportunity of discussing anything for the remainder of this session other than the programme of business as agreed. What the position will be after the Recess with regard to parliamentary business is something I am not in a position to comment on at this stage.

Did the Taoiseach get notice of that question from Deputy Sherlock?

Is there a possibility that the Taoiseach will give consideration to providing Government time for the debate in the next session?

I will have to ask the Ceann Comhairle if I am in order in replying. As Deputy Barry has pointed out, I have no notice of this matter. Does the Chair wish me to deal with it? Is it in order?

I think you could answer. The Deputy could move the First Stage if he wishes but the Taoiseach might like to answer his question about the next session.

I am afraid I cannot comment on the business of the next session at this stage.

In what respect does a Bill submitted by The Workers' Party differ from a Bill submitted by any other private Deputy? In what respect does such a Bill deserve consideration for an allotment of Government time rather than a Bill submitted from this side of the House by Deputy Shatter, for example?

We cannot have a discussion on this.

Is Private Members' Time not good enough for The Workers' Party any longer? Are they in a privileged position?

I want permission to raise the subject matter of replies to Questions Nos. 922 to 930 of 22 June.

The Chair will communicate with the Deputy.

Does the Taoiseach propose to make any statement to the House about what action the Government have taken on the motion passed by this House on Wednesday, 30 June, with regard to the Fieldcrest factory in Kilkenny? Before this House goes into Recess it should be told what action the Government have taken as a result of the decision of this House.

Arising from what Deputy Kelly said, he will be aware that we have not been allowed any Private Members' Time despite the fact that we had a Private Members' Motion on the agenda for a long time.

I want to ask the Taoiseach if there is any progress on the working party which was established to look into the question of electoral registers and the voting facilities for the disabled.

That working party are in fact meeting at the moment and I hope for a report from them in the early autumn. They have already asked for submission from various parties and individuals.

I did not get a reply to my question. It is very urgent.

I have no wish to be disorderly. I do not know if it is in order or not.

The Deputy is very unmannerly.

It is extraordinary that the most unmannerly people in this House are very often academics.

Does Deputy Quinn want to ask a question?

I would like to ask a question but I would like to ask it in an orderly manner.

I find this whole episode here quite strange. I rose earlier to question the behaviour of the former Minister for Justice. Everybody on the other side of the House is apparently allowed to raise whatever question they like.

No, they are not. They can raise matters in relation to legislation that may be promised.

There should be some kind of facility whereby backbenchers in the Government party can be allowed to make observations.

Could I ask the Government, and specifically the Minister for Industry and Energy, what action the Government have been taking arising out of a motion that was passed by a majority of this House in relation to the Fieldcrest factory?

That is a matter for a question.

Do I take it then that the eloquent silence of the Minister for Industry and Energy can be interpreted as meaning that no action whatsoever has been taken and that the wishes of this House have therefore been ignored?

Unfortunately, Deputy, I cannot guide you in that direction.

Is the Minister discriminating again against Kilkenny in that he will not answer a question on Fieldcrest on the Order of Business? He will not answer a question without notice.

It does not arise on the Order of Business.

Could I ask the Taoiseach whether the House may expect anything by way of legislation, ministerial order, or otherwise, before the end of the current session regarding the matter of Fieldcrest in Kilkenny and the Clondalkin Paper Mills?

That is not appropriate to the Order of Business. Legislation has not been promised on that.

It was promised and we are entitled to ask whether the House can expect——

Not legislation, Deputy.

Could I ask the Taoiseach — this is not a contentious matter — if he will agree to deal with No. 23 at some stage. This is the Financial Motion in the name of the Minister for Finance — the budget debate, as I understand it, which has not been completed — and if that matter is not dealt with it will remain on the Order Paper. It is something which has rapidly become irrelevant. Would the Taoiseach agree in the interests of the good conduct of the House that matters like that should be disposed of formally at least and will he comment on whether or not time will be made available to deal with No. 23? If the Taoiseach likes I will give him notice of that tomorrow.

Is it intended to introduce the legislation promised in relation to the establishment of the fair rents tribunals?

Considerable work has been done on the preparation of the machinery essential to the setting up of the tribunal and legislation should be ready when the House resumes after the Recess. It would have been included before this were it not for some considerable delays in bringing in the regulations and so on which had to be in by 27 July. They will be published this weekend and they should be in the Library before the end of the week.

In view of the commitment given at the time of the private rented dwellings legislation in relation to the establishment of a special section of the District Court in a premises identified by the Minister at the time, could the Minister now give some information as to whether the district justice has been appointed and whether a premises in Exchange Street had been properly acquired to facilitate those who will be confronted with this legislation after July 25?

The arrangements for the operation of the Act are going ahead. I will communicate with the Deputy and give him the full details. I have not got them with me now.

I want to be sure the information will cover the ground raised in my question. Does it specifically refer to the appointment of extra district justices and does it specifically refer to the acquisition of additional premises for the purpose of administering exclusively through the District Courts this particular legislation?

The commitments I gave at the time the legislation was going through the House still stand.

Could I ask the Chair if he will accept a Private Notice Question dealing with the bad behaviour of the former Minister for Justice dealing with Garda affairs?

I am sorry, Deputy. The Deputy will have to ask a question first.