It is proposed to take business in the following order: items Nos. 11 and 12, Vote No. 48. By agreement the Dáil shall sit later than 9 p.m. today and not later than 10.30 p.m. and there shall be no Private Members' Business this week. Also by agreement the proceedings on item No. 11 shall be interrupted at 5.30 p.m. to take Vote No. 48 if not reached earlier and the order shall not be resumed thereafter. Also by agreement the proceedings on Vote No. 48 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 10 p.m. today and the Minister for Energy shall be called on to conclude not later than 9.45 p.m. Also by agreement if a division is challenged on the Estimate today the taking of such division shall be postponed until 7 p.m. tomorrow.

Are the arrangements for the taking of today's business and for the division on the Estimate should it arise agreed?

Agreed. Will the Taoiseach indicate to the House the status of the two Bills which are at present before the Oireachtas dealing with radio and wireless telegraphy matters? What is the intention of the Government with regard to this legislation?

One Bill was introduced in the Seanad, the enforcement Bill to give it an informal title, and will reach this House in the autumn after it has proceeded through the Seanad. The other Bill was introduced in this House and is being debated here.

Is it the Government's intention to proceed with the Bill which is before the House?

The Bill is before the House and will be proceeded with in due course as and when we come back here and have an opportunity to consider any proposals for amendment that may be put forward.

The Taoiseach is confirming categorically that the Government do not intend to withdraw either or both of these two Bills?

It is not the intention to withdraw either of these two Bills.

The Taoiseach is joking, of course.

Does the Taoiseach recall a commitment given to me that he would have the Bill brought before the House and finalised before the summer recess? He should honour that commitment.

We endeavoured to do that as far as possible but when the Bill was introduced it transpired there was a large number of speakers and by agreement between the Whips the conclusion was reached that it would not be possible to get it through the House in this session. It has been postponed until the next session.

Is it not a fact that the Taoiseach withdrew the Bill because of the opposition of the Labour Party?

Deputy Haughey was quite in order when he asked what it was proposed to do with these Bills but I am not prepared, nor would it be in order for me to allow this to develop into a debate.

Would the Taoiseach agree that it is a matter of parliamentary practice and procedure that a Government which are unable to put important legislation through the House should resign?

That is another matter.

It is a very important one.

It does not arise. I do not know what an Opposition should do when they cannot agree on a Bill.

The Taoiseach could not fool a child.

We are digging a grave for the Government.

Will the Taoiseach consider, in view of the speculation——

Will both sides please allow business to proceed?

——in financial circles and in the media generally concerning ICI's liabilities, making a statement guaranteeing the House that no liability will attach to taxpayers as was guaranteed by the Minister for Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism, Deputy Bruton, when the Insurance Bill was introduced in March.

That does not arise.

It is widely understood that the report outlining the details of ICI is with the Minister.

The Deputy is being disorderly. He should not persist in being disorderly.

People are saying the House is entitled to know the extent of the liabilities.

The Deputy should refer anyone who makes that assertion to Standing Orders.

It is contrary to a commitment given by the Minister in the House.

The Deputy will have to find another way to raise this matter.

When a Minister gives a commitment to the House to make known a certain fact before a certain date it could be expected that he would honour his commitment. What we expect is that when the House rises we will be told about the £3 million or £4 million which the taxpayer will have to meet.

As the Minister for Labour is not here, will the Taoiseach say when the workers in Clover Meats in Waterford and Clonmel will be paid the minimum notice due to them? This has already been paid to their fellow workers in Wexford. As a result of a technicality in the Act——

That matter does not arise on the Order of Business.

It should. I wish to raise the matter on the Adjournment.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Will the Taoiseach consider sympathetically amending the regulation in the Protection of Employees (Insolvency) Act?

That does not arise.

What is the status now of the National Development Corporation for which legislation was promised prior to the summer Recess?

It is the same as the Radio Bill.

The Bill will go through the House in the autumn.

Which autumn?

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the new instructions issued by the Department of Industry, Trade, Commerce and Tourism dealing with the consumer affairs office which now virtually denies the right of the individual to make any complaint under the consumer Acts.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

Since the tone of the Taoiseach is that business is being extended to the autumn, will he indicate if either before this session ends or early in the autumn he will bring a motion before the House for the appointment of new members of Government or for changes of existing members?

That does not arise.

How can the Chair say that matter does not arise?

The Front Bench will be enlarged to include the entire party.