It is proposed to take Nos. 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 13 and 14. It is also proposed that No. 13 shall be taken without debate. Private Members' Business shall be No. 35.

May I ask now if it is agreed that No. 13 shall be taken without debate?

No, it is not agreed. No. 13 proposes to take a motion without debate which would, in effect, restrict the right to speak in the debate on the Estimates. The Standing Order which is being invoked in this particular motion restricts to 20 minutes the contribution which I may make on this debate. I have objected to this procedure before and I am objecting to it again. It is a petty and a mean-minded approach to the allocation of time in this House.

The Deputy has an amendment tabled for when we come to deal with this item.

I have checked with the authorities in this House and I have been told that while I may move the amendment I would not be entitled to speak to it if we allow this motion be taken without debate. Therefore, I am asking that this House not agree to the motion being taken without debate. If that is agreed, I am quite prepared to hold my point of view until such time as we come to deal with the motion.

The question is: "That No. 13 be taken without debate." On that question a division has been challenged. Will the Members who claim the division, please rise, in their places?

Deputies De Rossa, Mac Giolla, Sherlock and McCartan rose.

As fewer than ten Members have risen, I declare the question carried.

The names of the Members who rose in their places will be recorded in the Journal of Proceedings of the Dáil.

On the Order of Business, would it be in order for me to ask the Tánaiste when the report of the Dáil Constituency Review Commission will be published and made available to the House? I ask the question because we are how in the farcical situation whereby the newspapers and all of the media seem to have access to the report or large parts of it while it is still not before the House. Can we know when we will have this report?

The Deputy will appreciate that what appears in the media does not necessarily take precedence over Standing Orders.

I am not seeking an explanation from you, Sir, as to the veracity or otherwise of what appears in the media but——

I am not giving the Deputy and explanation. I am indicating what way order is carried out here, and it is not in response to media speculation.

This is a matter which has been promised; this is a matter that has to come before the House, and I find it absolutely unacceptable that every section of the media should seem to have this report before it is before the House. With the greatest respect, Sir, I have no need to discuss with you the difference between what is published in the media and reality. We could both write long dispositions about that. I would like to know from the Tánaiste when we can expect to see the report.

It is going through due process of consideration. Whatever emerges, and when it emerges, from the commission will be examined by the Government and a lot of procedures have to be followed when the report comes to us.

That is not an answer to my question. I have no doubt the report is going through a due process of consideration, but whose due process of consideration is it going through at the moment, and when can we expect it will go through the due process of consideration in this House?

As far as the Government are concerned, the matter is still with the commission, decided over by the President of the High Court——

Would the Government not think they should make some inquiries regarding these reports of what might be in the commission's report——

Is it, perhaps, time to call on Deputy Doherty to make an inquiry?

The independence of the Judiciary and quasi-judicial commissions of this kind are a matter of sacred trust as far as this Government are concerned.

I am sure the Leader of the Opposition will accept that on this note it would be advisable not to go into this any further.

I do not intend getting into a religious debate with the Tánaiste. All I would like to know is when we will have the report. I am not in any way impugning the independence of the commission, although I submit to the Tánaiste that it must be a matter of some concern for the Government — and they have a track record in this regard as we all know — that an awful lot of things that appear to be about to be published in the report have already been published. Is he not worried about that? Would it not clarify the position if, instead of reading these leaks, we had the report?

This matter will come about when the full process has been followed. We must do this properly, decently——

We must await the report which will be considered by the Government. That process is under way at the moment. The matter is now with the President of the High Court and other members of the Commission.

All with the odour of sanctity.

The matter I wanted permission to raise has been superseded to a certain extent. Nevertheless, with your permission, I wish to raise the following matter. Having regard to the widespread public anxiety because of wholesale and detailed leaks regarding the recommendations, or the proposed recommendations, of the constituency commission who, as far as is known, have not yet completed their deliberations, I wish to raise on the Adjournment of the House tonight the adequacy of the arrangements made for the protection of the confidentiality of said deliberations pending the completion and furnishing of the report to the Minister for Finance by the commission.

The Ceann Comhairle's office will communicate with the Deputy.

When the Dáil resumed last week I tabled a Private Notice Question relating to Circular M88, that is, the circular dealing with the right of pupils to repeat a year when their teachers feel it is necessary. I did not succeed with that question and I sought to raise the matter on the Adjournment on both sitting days last week. I would now like to try again.

The Ceann Comhairle's office will communicate with Deputy Birmingham.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment today — and if not today when I will raise it again tomorrow — the changes in the national fuel scheme which have resulted in anomalies where many people on low incomes, who benefited under this scheme in the past, are not benefiting this year, while others are still benefiting.

The Ceann Comhairle's office will communicate with Deputy Flaherty.

On the Order of Business, can the Tánaiste confirm that there will be legislation or a motion to be debated in this House before the end of the year in respect of the renewal of the provisions of the Extradition (Amendment) (No. 2) Act of the previous year?

I answered that last week. That matter will be before the House in due course.

Before the end of the year?

I think the proposed date is 14 December.

I seek permission to raise on the Adjournment the serious flooding and flood damage caused in the catchment area of the Rivers Lee and Black-water.

The Ceann Comhairle's office will communicate with Deputy Quill.

May I ask the Tánaiste if the Government will provide time in this session to discuss the Combat Poverty Agency report?

As the Deputy will appreciate, that question does not refer to promised legislation.

The Government may have a view——

Deputy Spring will have to find other ways to elicit that information.

I thought if I brought it to the Government's attention I would get the information.

In view of the fact that my Private Notice Question was disallowed, may I ask the Minister for the Environment if he will initiate urgent discussions with the local authorities in Mallow and Fermoy in view of the serious damage caused by flooding, if he will consider seeking EC assistance to tackle the problem and if he will make a statement on the matter?

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

No.

The Deputy is out of order if he is seeking to raise this matter anywhere else.

I am asking if the Minister——

The Minister would not be entitled to answer that question at this time, and the Deputy knows it.

Do I take it the Minister does not have any reply——

What he does must be in accordance with the rulings of the Chair.

In view of the totally unsatisfactory reply I received from the Minister for Education concerning the appointment of a teacher at San Carlo senior national school, I ask permission to raise this matter on the Adjournment.

The Ceann Comhairle's office will communicate with Deputy Stagg.

In view of the unsatisfactory nature of the reply I received from the Minister on the question of aid for Central America, I wish to raise this issue on the Adjournment tonight.

The Ceann Comhairle's office will communicate with Deputy De Rossa.

I wish to raise with the Tánaiste the question of allowing time to debate the financial difficulties of the Voluntary Health Insurance Board. When I raised this issue last week he suggested this should be discussed between the Whips. Since then the Government Chief Whip announced they are not prepared to allow a debate on the matter this week. In view of the fact that the VHI said they hoped to increase fees by 1 December——

The Deputy is out of order in raising this matter again. He knows that there are limitations on what can be raised on the Order of Business, the manner in which it can be raised and what is appropriate. There is no promised legislation on the matter to which he referred and, therefore, it is not in order.

The Leas-Cheann Comhairle will appreciate that the Ceann Comhairle allowed this question last week and allowed the Tánaiste to respond. It is a very serious issue and I would ask the Tánaiste if Government time will be allowed?

As Deputy Yates reminded me, we are in the area of repetition, and it makes it less attractive to me than it would have been if the Deputy had not referred to that.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the controversial circumstances surrounding the death of a man in Jervis Street Hospital on Sunday 10 May 1987 and the refusal of the Minister for Health to reply to my correspondence to him of 29 January of this year and to the numerous reminders since then.

The Ceann Comhairle's office will communicate with the Deputy.

I have another matter on the Order of Business. In view of the fact that the Minister for Labour has refused to answer four separate questions relating to matters including the Custom House Docks Site, FÁS training proposals and other matters, will the Minister say whether he now retains any functions or responsibilities for which he is prepared to answer in this House?

The Deputy knows that that is not an appropriate question, and he is only delaying the time of the House.

Will the Minister for Industry and Commerce say when he proposes to make his views known with regard to the proposed takeover of Irish Distillers by Pernod Ricard or GC & C. Brands?

In due course.

How soon is that? Is it in the next week or two or in the next month?

It will be before the time has expired.