It is proposed to take Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 (Vote 9). By agreement, the Dáil will sit later than 9 p.m. today and the hour at which business is to be interrupted will be 10.30 p.m. Also by agreement the debate on Vote 9, if not previously concluded, will be brought to a conclusion not later than 10.30 p.m. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance will be called on to conclude not later than 10.20 p.m. If a division is challenged on any Estimate today the taking of such division will be postponed until 8.30 p.m. next Wednesday. Private Members' Business will be Nos. 19 and 20.

It is proposed to take Nos. 3, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 (Vote 9). By agreement the Dáil will sit later than 9 p.m. today and the hour at which business is to be interrupted will be 10.30 p.m. Also by agreement the debate on Vote 9, if not previously concluded, will be brought to a conclusion not later than 10.30 p.m. The Minister of State at the Department of Finance will be called on to conclude not later than 10.20 p.m. I presume it is agreed that that item will be taken immediately after Private Members' Business. It is not so stated.

Dún Laoghaire): If the previous business concludes we will automatically go on to the Estimates.

If previous business does not conclude?

(Dún Laoghaire): Yes.

It is not clear.

Indeed it is not. As a matter of fact very few things are clear about this Government at the moment.

The identity of 16 people is quite clear.

Order. The Chair has not concluded reading the Order of Business. If a division is challenged on any Estimate today the taking of such division will be postponed until 8.30 p.m. next Wednesday. Private Members' Business will be Nos. 19 and 20. Are the arrangements for Private Members' Time agreed, subject to the addendum that, if No. 9 is not reached before 8.30 p.m., it will be taken then?

(Dún Laoghaire): No. 12.

It is Vote 9 in No. 12. Is that agreed?

Agreed.

Item No. 3. The Leader of the Opposition on the Order of Business.

I wish to raise again with the Taoiseach the question of the vote of no confidence in the Minister for Finance which we have put down and to repeat my request that it be taken today. There are ample precedents for the giving of priority to motions of no confidence of this sort. I should like to point out to you, a Cheann Comhairle — and I think you are already aware of the fact — that long and arduous discussions took place about the arrangements for the visit of President Reagan to the country and to this House. Arrangements were agreed between the parties. Part of that agreement was to the effect that the House would not sit tomorrow in order to facilitate the arrangements. It now transpires that unilaterally the Taoiseach has broken that agreement.

We cannot have a long speech.

I have to make my case.

I want to point out to Deputy Haughey that he is now proposing that something else be taken today, the House having just agreed to today's business.

I did not agree.

Perhaps the laughing hyenas over there would let us conduct our business in a proper manner. I did not agree to the Order of Business. You asked me would I agree to a particular proposal about Private Members' Business and the taking of item No. 12.

I asked were the arrangements I read out agreed to subject to the addendum and I understood Deputy Haughey to say yes and I said agreed.

This Order of Business which I have before me and which you read out has been amended by you verbally. I think that is unusual.

Perhaps, but it was agreed.

I should also like to point out that item No. 7 was put in here at the last minute and we were asked to agree to it informally which we did. I do not think the Government are behaving very satisfactorily in presenting the Order of Business to the House in this way. Surely I am entitled to make a point on the Order of Business, and my point is that we are——

I read out what the Taoiseach read out with an addendum about item No. 12. That represented the arrangements for today's business. I looked in Deputy Haughey's direction and asked was that agreed and I clearly understood him to say yes.

I am absolutely clear that the Chair asked me specifically if this arrangement about item No.12, which is not clear from the Order of Business the Chair read out, was agreed and that is what I agreed to.

Once that was agreed it followed that the Deputy was agreeing to the whole thing.

The arrangements about item No. 12 were added to by the Chair verbally, a most unusual procedure. I was being helpful by agreeing to the Chair's verbal amendment but now the Chair is trying to turn that against me and prevent me making my case. My point is that the arrangements were all agreed between the parties. They have now been unilaterally broken by the Taoiseach in regard to our motion of no confidence and I object to that. Again I ask the Taoiseach to provide time today for that motion of no confidence.

I do not know what the Deputy is talking about. The Whips discussed this yesterday and agreed to the discussion on Thursday. I do not know what on earth the Deputy is talking about. He should talk to his own Whip occasionally.

A black hole on the Order of Business.

In Fianna Fáil. It appears that Fianna Fáil have fallen into it.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach to repeat what he said because it did not make any sense to me. Will he please reply to my point that he has unilaterally broken arrangements entered into by the parties? We are pressing for the taking of this motion today. If the Taoiseach is afraid of the motion I can understand that, but surely it is something of importance that should be taken at the earliest possible moment.

We agreed to give time tomorrow for statements on this subject. That was agreed by the Opposition side through their Whip and I do not have any idea what the Leader of the Opposition is talking about and neither does he, obviously.

I do not think it is appropriate for the Taoiseach to say that I do not know what I am talking about. That may be the way that the Fine Gael Party wish to conduct the business of the House. I know precisely what I am talking about. I am pointing out that the Taoiseach, not for the first time, has broken arrangements entered into between the parties in regard to the non-sitting of the House on Thursday. I am asking that he give us time for this important motion today.

No agreement has been broken; agreement has been reached.

I should like to make it clear that we did not finalise our discussions. I am not going to start breaching by giving a strike by strike account of what happened between the Whips. I do not think it is appropriate that the Taoiseach should either. However, it was not agreed that the statements would be tomorrow. We were in discussion and last night having spoken to the Minister's office I left saying that we would finalise those discussions today.

I should like to ask the Minister for the Environment the position with regard to the promised legislation on the mutualisation of the ICS Building Society and when we will have that legislation. Will the Minister tell the House if there is any change in the proposal he announced to the House earlier?

The legislation is with the Attorney General's Office for preparation. There is no change in any proposals I gave earlier.

Will the Taoiseach confirm or deny persistent rumours that members of his Government will not be attending the House next Monday?

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Is the Taoiseach aware that in his own constituency there are most offensive slogans, "Kick Reagan out" on which the name of the chairman of the Labour Party appears? Will the Taoiseach take some measures to have them removed before Monday?

This does not arise on the Order of Business and the Deputy should resume his seat.

There are twice as many "Kick Dessie out" slogans.

In view of the urgency and seriousness of the matter I should like to ask the Taoiseach when it is proposed to introduce the necessary legislation to follow up on the declaration that Ringaskiddy will be a free port. When will the legislation be brought before the House?

I understand that that question was answered yesterday during Question Time.

I asked a question and I would appreciate if I got a clear and distinct answer to it. My question related to legislation.

I am not responsible for the answers. I am calling the next Deputy in order, Deputy Molony.

I wish to protest.

Will the Taoiseach tell the House when it is proposed to introduce legislation to reduce the age of majority from 21 years to 18 years?

We hope to introduce that legislation in this session.

I should like to suggest, as has been done before, that Members who want information at this time should give some notice.

I should like to draw the Taoiseach's attention to the sectarian statements, in the true sense of the word, that the Government should take up——

Does this arise on the Order of Business?

It is very much to do with the order of stability of this nation. I am referring to statements attributed to a DUP councillor in Belfast yesterday.

That does not arise on the Order of Business.

Under the incitement to hatred legislation those comments should be reacted to immediately by the Government. Surely the Government think it important and will take some action immediately?

I am ruling that the matter does not arise on the Order of Business. It does not make sense to introduce that matter in this way.

Since I became a Member I have understood that it is in order to raise on the Order of Business matters relating to legislation. I want an answer to the direct question I put to the Taoiseach, when will legislation be introduced as a follow-up to the proposal that Ringaskiddy, and its environs, be declared a free port? I want an answer to that question now.

The Deputy should read this morning's newspapers. That is in those newspapers.

I am not talking about yesterday or any other day. I want an answer to my question now.

The Deputy has asked the question and he should now sit down.

I will be guided by the Chair.

The Chair is aware that that question was asked several times in the recent past and answered. Apart from that, the Deputy asked a question today and he got an answer.

I did not get an answer.

It was an offensive answer.

The Chair heard the Taoiseach say it was answered at Question Time yesterday.

That is not the way to deal with a Member. As a Deputy I resent that approach.

The Deputy should resume his seat.

There has been no change in the position as stated in the House yesterday. If the Deputy wishes to ask the question every day I will try to answer it every day. If the Deputy had read the newspapers he would know the answer.

Is it the intention of the Minister for the Environment to make a statement about the failure of the rights issue for the Housing Finance Agency? What is the future for the agency in view of the fact that they do not have any funds?

That does not arise in the Order of Business.

It is a very important matter for house purchasers generally and it is a reflection on the Government if they cannot raise money from the public.

With the permission of the Chair, I should like to raise on the Adjournment the serious financial situation being experienced by T & D Engineering Ltd., Tynagh, Loughrea, County Galway which is forcing the company out of business.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

On the Adjournment, I should like to raise the question of the offensive anti-Reagan slogans in the Dublin South-East constituency.

I will communicate with the Deputy.