It is proposed to take Nos. 15, 16, 9, 17 and 5. It is also proposed that the proceedings on the Committee Stage of No. 15 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 12.30 p.m. today by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall, in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister for Justice.

It is further proposed that all stages of No. 16 shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 7.00 p.m. this evening by one question which shall be put from the Chair and which shall in relation to amendments, include only amendments set down by the Minister for the Marine.

Private Members' Business shall be No. 26.

Is the proposal regarding No. 15 agreed?

May I point out that a motion of this kind should properly be put on the Order Paper? This is a guillotine motion which is open to discussion in the House and should be put in advance on the Order Paper rather than be moved in this way. I have no objection to this particular debate being terminated in this way but I want to put down a marker because there may well be objection in the future in relation to other matters of this kind. The procedure that should be followed is that a motion should be put down and it should be open to discussion. This practice has grown up in recent times and does not comply with standing orders.

Yes, it is a practice which has grown up and the Chair is conforming to that recognised practice.

Item No. 15 agreed.

Is the proposal regarding No. 16, Shipping Investment Grants Bill, 1987, agreed?

The same considerations apply to that as apply to No. 15. The motion should be on the Order Paper.

Item No. 16 agreed.

Yesterday I asked if the Taoiseach would keep the House informed about developments in relation to the detention of the vessel Eksund and the Taoiseach agreed to keep the House informed. Would the Taoiseach arrange for the Minister for Justice to make a statement today of the information that is available? I would point out that the matter has been the subject of some debate in another Parliament which is less directly affected by the whole affair than this House, and I would ask that an arrangement be made today under which the House would be informed of the full extent of this matter. This is even more worrying because it seems that a person described as the logistics officer of the Provisional IRA was on board the vessel with an apparent connection still there from Libya. The matter seems to be extremely sinister.

The Deputy is seeking to have a statement made on the matter.

I accept the thrust of Deputy Dukes' proposal and will be glad to see if what he seeks can be arranged.

May I ask when the House may anticipate considering the Homeless Persons Bill?

It is under very active consideration by the Government at the moment with a view to bringing it forward at a very early date.

I do not know if you have had an opportunity to read your Cork Examiner this morning, but if you did you would find on the front page an article headed “Cutbacks Restrict Search”. There are implications in this in so far as the Minister for Justice, in reply to a Private Notice Question I had put down——

Has the Deputy a question dealing with legislation proposed in this House?

The Minister for Justice assured those of us who asked the question that there was no restriction on overtime for the gardaí involved in the search for Mr. O'Grady.

The Deputy should pursue that matter in the normal way, that is by way of a question or through other ways and means open to him. It is not appropriate now.

I am asking the Taoiseach to ask the Minister to correct what is in the newspaper or to say that the Minister misled the House.

I cannot allow Deputy Barrett to abuse the procedures laid down for the Order of Business in this manner.

Surely I can ask the Taoiseach if a statement will be made.

I should like to raise on the Adjournment of the House the subject matter of Questions Nos. 19 and 43 on yesterday's Order Paper.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I should like permission to raise on the Adjournment the statistics on child sexual abuse and general abuse which were given yesterday to the women's rights committee with particular reference to the Government's failure to bring forward the Children (Care and Protection) Bill and the cutting off of funding to the voluntary organisations involved in that area.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

I want to refer for a moment to the matter raised by my colleague Deputy Sean Barrett who was asking if the Taoiseach would arrange for a statement to be made to the House. I submit that it is perfectly in order for my colleague to ask that question on the Order of Business. I will repeat the question, will the Taoiseach arrange for the Minister for Justice to make a statement to the House today indicating the reasons for the apparent divergence between the report we have now received and a statement made by the Minister in the House?

I have already ruled on that matter.

Is the Chair now saying we cannot ask on the Order of Business whether the Taoiseach will arrange during the course of the day's business for a statement to be made?

If it is a clean request for a statement, yes, but I am not certain that was what the Deputy was seeking.

I did ask for a statement.

With respect, it is perfectly clear to me that what Deputy Barrett was raising was the question whether the Taoiseach would arrange to have a statement made in the House. It seems to me that is perfectly in order.

That is fair enough.

May we have a reply?

Have the Government something to hide?

The question is in order if a request is made for a statement.

I am not sure that a statement at this stage would be advantageous in the whole matter but, certainly, in so far as the matter referred to by the Deputy is concerned the newspaper report is without foundation.

A number of gardaí down there would be in disagreement.

I should like to ask the Minister for the Environment if he has received the report from the Deputy Secretary, or the Assistant Secretary, of his Department who is also the chairman of the interim board of An Foras Forbartha, with regard to proposals for the dispersal of the activities of that board. If the Minister has received that report, will he make it available to the House as he promised in reply to a question last week?

It can proceed by way of normal questions.

I do not wish to unnecessarily clutter up the Order Paper with questions when they can be readily answered in the Chamber. The Minister was very co-operative and gave an open and generous assurance to the House that he would make the report available. Since the report was to be completed by the end of October the question I have put to the Government is reasonable. Has the report been completed, will it be made available? Let us be sensible in the way we do our business.

The Deputy should raise the matter as a normal question.

Will the Taoiseach, or the Minister for the Marine, tell the House when the report and recommendations of the salmon review group will be published?

Will the Deputy put down a question in respect of that matter?

Silent Ministers; they have all been gagged.

They will hold a big press conference later.

They are sitting there like dummies. Is this a new image? Is P.J. Mara at work again and telling them, "go down there and say nothing".

Order.

Have the Ministers been told to keep their traps shut, that they always make fools of themselves?

May we have an indication from the Minister for Justice as to when the Departmental review of the Whitaker report on penal reform will be completed and when we will be given time, as promised, to discuss the report?

The Deputy should deal with that matter in the ordinary way.

Will the Taoiseach say when he expects to be in a position to make a statement to the House on the proposed developments at Whiddy Island?

That is not relevant at this time.

I am asking the Taoiseach whether he proposes to make a statement on this matter. I want to encourage the Taoiseach to do so.

I cannot allow the procedure of the House to be circumvented by a demand for statements of all kinds.

On a point of order, there is a precedent for my request in that when the Chevron Oil Company arrangement was completed the then Minister for Energy made a statement to the House. I am asking the Taoiseach if he will follow that precedent. There has been so much bad news delivered to West Cork that I am anxious to encourage him to give information that will indicate a bright spot on the horizon.

The matter is not of such an urgent nature that the Deputy could not put down a question about it.

I should like to ask the Taoiseach, and the Minister for Education, if they are aware of the public disquiet regarding the recent appointment of a principal of Kanturk Vocational School. Are they aware that of the eight candidates who qualified only three were interviewed and that one of them, the former General Secretary of Fine Gael for the past eight years, was appointed?

Deputy Barrett should let us have an answer to that.

Deputy Sherlock should pursue that matter by some other means. He is not in order now.

I cannot allow this to continue on the Order of Business. I am indicating to the House that I will not permit the Order of Business to be used as a mini Question Time or for any purpose other than that laid down in Standing Orders.

Acting entirely within the terms of that directive, I should like to ask the Taoiseach when we are likely to expect the proposed legislation on Coolattin Woods which was promised in the last session.

I am moving on to item No. 15.

I did not hear the response of the Taoiseach. Was there a response? No legislation?

On a point of order, I should like to inquire from the Chair on what basis I was ruled out of order when the previous Government had promised——

That is not a point of order.

In regard to the Order of Business I wish to be respectful to the Chair——

If the Deputy wishes he may take the matter up with my office. I will not arbitrate on it now.