asked the Minister for Agriculture if he is aware that farmers who borrowed to purchase land in 1975 are in severe financial difficulties; and if he will extend the scheme to include 1975.

Farmers who borrowed in 1975 to purchase land had the benefit of the substantial growth in farm incomes in the years 1975 to 1978 and there has been little evidence that these farmers now find themselves in severe financial difficulty.

Where there is evidence that these farmers are in difficulty, will the Minister consider including them in the scheme?

We had to have a starting date and that date was January 1976.

Was this date chosen by the Minister or proposed by the EEC?

I would imagine it was chosen by the Minister but the EEC may have had some influence in the matter. Farmers who borrowed in 1975 had the benefit of three exceptionally good years during which they were able to meet their commitments. Inflation in the period 1975 would have eroded the real burden of debt which occurred in 1975.

There are people who borrowed in the second half of 1975 and now find themselves in difficulty. Will the Minister take these into consideration and make exceptions where cases so demand?

As I have said, the date is January 1976. Unfortunately, I am not in a position to change that.

Would the Minister accept——

I have already allowed a lot of supplementaries.

A final one. Would the Minister accept that there could be cases?

I accept there might be isolated cases but we must have a starting date. Farmers who borrowed in 1975 might not be in as bad a position as those who borrowed later on.

Will the Minister give consideration to the isolated cases who find themselves in great difficulty?

Unfortunately, I cannot do so on the basis that the date in question is January 1976.

The remaining Questions will appear on tomorrow's Order Paper.

On a point of order, I understand that the Chair has refused my Private Notice Question dealing with the Deputy Mitchell affair. In view of this is there any opportunity for the Minister to come into the House and give a report on the investigations which he has carried out into the allegations made in the national newspapers about the interference by Deputy Mitchell?

Is the Deputy seeking to raise this matter on the Adjournment?

I sought to do so yesterday and as a Government backbencher——

(Cavan-Monaghan): The way to solve that is to get a car.

——I feel aggrieved that I have been unable to bring this matter into the House for discussion.

We cannot discuss it now.

I appreciate that.

Deputies made their views known this morning on the necessity for reform in the Dáil. Perhaps what the Deputy has raised may be considered when the Whips meet. There is no provision at present under Standing Orders for the Deputy to raise this matter now.

I appreciate that. It is a matter of grave national importance if the spokesman for Justice of the main political Opposition party, Deputy Mitchell, and if they are still the law and order party as they claim——

There is no provision for making statements.

I do not wish to make a statement.

If the Deputy questions my ruling that is considered disorderly and I will have to take action.

I do not intend to be disorderly.

If the Deputy persists in this or questions my ruling that is considered disorderly.

I do not intend——

The Deputy's persistence in this is disorderly.

Will the Minister for Justice come into the House and make a statement on the issue?

I suggest the Deputy asks the Minister for Justice that.

I cannot do so.

The Deputy cannot continue to press the matter now or he will be considered disorderly and I will have to take effective action.

I accept the Chair's ruling but——

Surely the Deputy is aware that people on that side of the House have been known to interfere with the police since the foundation of the State.

Order, please.

The Deputy's Government sacked two commissioners for doing their duty well.