It is proposed to take items Nos. 13, 22 and 8.

It is also proposed that the Dáil shall sit later than 9 p.m. today and business shall be interrupted at 10.30 p.m.

It is further proposed that items Nos. 13 and 22 shall be taken together for the purposes of debate and the following arrangements shall apply: (1) the Minister for Finance shall be called on not later than 4.30 p.m. on Thursday next to conclude the debate; and (2) the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion at 5 p.m. on that day by one question.

It is further proposed that item No. 8 shall be taken not later than 8.30 p.m. today and the following arrangements shall apply:

(1) The speech of each Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes; and (2) the final speaker for the Government shall be called on not later than 10.20 p.m. to conclude the debate and the proceedings shall be brought to a conclusion not later than 10.30 p.m. and the order shall not resume.

Private Members' Business shall be item No. 29.

Is the proposal for a late sitting today agreed? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with items Nos. 13 and 22 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal for dealing with item No. 8 agreed? Agreed.

Last week I asked the Taoiseach if the Government would make time available for a debate on the current position within the Defence Forces. At the time the Taoiseach seemed to have an open mind in the House and suggested that the matter could be discussed between the Whips. That has been done and to say the least the Government Chief Whip has taken a negative attitude. I should like to ask now whether the Taoiseach would reconsider the matter and agree to make time available for a debate on circumstances causing a great many of us a good deal of worry and members of the Defence Forces and their families a great deal of hardship.

I must always accept a suggestion from the Leader of the principal Opposition Party that I should reconsider and I will.

On the Order of Business, may I raise two matters briefly? Again, I wish to raise on the Adjournment the payment of approximately £2 million by Dublin County Council to Grange Developments.

I will communicate with the Deputy in respect of the first matter.

May I draw to the attention of the Taoiseach that possibly inadvertently he misled the House on Thursday last when he indicated that Dublin local authorities had appointed consultants for the Dublin region Structural Funds to produce a report when, in fact, it was his Government who appointed consultants at a cost of £300,000.

I am not certain this arises on the Order of Business.

I want to ask the Taoiseach whether, in the light of the fact that there has been a leak of what is alleged to be the consultants' report by a major national newspaper——

I am afraid, Deputy Shatter that, with the best will in the world, it is not relevant on the Order of Business. Doubtless the Deputy will find another way of raising that matter.

Would the Taoiseach make the full report available now to this House?

Please, Deputy De Rossa is offering.

With respect, Sir, the Taoiseach misled the House on Thursday last——

The Deputy may not ignore——

——and the report has been concealed by the Government. Members of this House are entitled to the full report. We should not have to rely on The Irish Times to find out what are the Government's proposals.

I am calling Deputy De Rossa.

On a point of order, I submit to you, Sir, that it is a matter of the order of the House that the Taoiseach should be allowed to correct a misapprehension he delivered to this House last week. I would invite the Taoiseach to do so now.

It is a matter that can be dealt with in another way.

I take it, then, that the Taoiseach does not want to correct the record of an erroneous statement he made to the House.

I am accepting nothing.

Please, Deputy De Rossa has been called.

The Taoiseach must accept that either he deliberately gave the House wrong information or he did not know what he was talking about last week. The fact of the matter is that the Taoiseach is now concealing a report which cost £300,000 to produce——

Deputy Dukes, that matter is not in order now.

—— while he was trying to make a virtue of consultation with the Dublin local authorities.

I am calling Deputy De Rossa.

It cost £300,000 of taxpayers' money. Yet we cannot see the report.

How much of it will be changed before finalisation?

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the continued threats to the rail line between Dublin and Belfast and the consequent threat to the lives of staff, passengers and jobs both North and South.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

May I ask the Taoiseach and the Minister for Defence if it is now Government policy for the Air Corps to train Aer Lingus pilots, as outlined on the front page of a national newspaper today?

Please, Deputy. I thought the Deputy was raising a relevant matter on the Order of Business. Clearly this is not.

On the Order of Business, a Cheann Comhairle, I sent you a Private Notice Question on this topic ——

I observe that the Deputy was very late in respect of that matter.

I submitted it to your office at 11.30 a.m. today. Would the Taoiseach please answer the question.

Would Deputy Enright come to their rescue.

They are talking about providing jobs while there are pilots training outside Ireland.

While others are held against their will.

Is there any way we could expedite the European elections and get rid of this codology?

They might not be able to expedite the results.

On the matter of legislation promised, I want to raise the issue of the various promises made from time to time in regard to the extension of patent protection in Ireland from 16 years to 20 years. I want to highlight for the Taoiseach the fact that there is a firm in Cork with an annual wage bill of 30 million dollars in respect of 230 employees. Those jobs will be endangered from August next unless the necessary patent legislation is put in place in the meantime. At this stage I should like a specific commitment from the Taoiseach that the necessary legislation will be in place before the summer recess so that we can ensure that those jobs in Cork, along with others, will not be endangered.

The Deputy has made his point adequately.

I should like to highlight for the Deputy that we have been discussing this on and off over a number of weeks. In fact, quite recently the spokesman in the Deputy's party responsible for this area raised the matter with me. I undertook to meet the firm in question, or arrange to have them met, to discuss what we could do to help.

I have called Deputy McDowell.

Can the Taoiseach confirm to the House that whatever steps are necessary from the point of view of legislation will be taken?

Please, desist, Deputy O'Keeffe.

If there are any constitutional difficulties with ratifying either the Community convention or the EPC, will the Taoiseach consider overcoming those constitutional difficulties by way of running a referendum on the subject along with the European elections on 15 June? It seems to be an inexpensive and a practical way to get over the difficulty.

It would not be feasible or practical to do that. It is something that would require a lot of examination. A constitutional referendum is a major matter. We might set out to do something quite simple and find that we were doing all sorts of things that we did not intend.

Like divorce.

It is not necessary. We will find a way around the difficulties.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the anxiety felt by parents about the provision of school transport after the summer holidays, particularly having regard to the fears expressed by the unions and by CIE.

I will communicate with the Deputy.

In view of the length of time that has elapsed since this House decided to set up an all-party committee to inquire into the ways and means of disposing of lottery funds——

Please, Deputy Sherlock, you will have to raise that in another way. There are many avenues open to the Deputy for that purpose. Deputy Michael D. Higgins has been offering.

Will the Taoiseach say if it is intended to give consideration——

Order. Deputy Mitchael D. Higgins.

I would like to raise on the Adjournment the continuing hardship being suffered by the people of the three Aran Islands in view of the failure to arrive at a decision to provide an adequate permanent accountable replacement service for their transportation to the islands.

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning that matter.

May I ask——

A report was promised.

I have advised the Deputy to raise that matter in another fashion. Deputy Avril Doyle, please.

Will the Taoiseach say whether the increased activity by the Department of Agriculture inspectors in the last week in relation to spot checks and investigations at ports of exit and meat plants is as a direct result of the two meetings that took place in this Department——

Please, Deputy Doyle.

There was an ad hoc committee involving senior civil servants from various Departments.

This clearly is not in order now. I am sure the Deputy will find means and ways of raising that matter.

The Chair is aware that I have tried to raise this. On this day last week I brought it up. The Taoiseach indicated a Private Notice Question but you ruled me out as it was not urgent. I put down a written question to the Taoiseach today and you chose to rule that out by answering the question for him.

My office has been in touch with Deputy Doyle concerning this matter and they have explained to the Deputy, I believe in great detail, the reasons for my refusal of the Deputy's request. The Deputy may not pursue the matter any further.

This is a serious matter that I am trying to pursue in an orderly fashion.

Deputy Doyle, you must desist.

For three weeks I have tried to get this information and I have been thwarted.

I am sorry, Deputy, I have communicated with you in the matter. I have nothing further to add. Deputy Jimmy Deenihan is offering.

Could I please ask the Taoiseach if this ad hoc committee has directed the increased activity we have witnessed during the week? Why is it necessary to deny the existence of the committee? Why is the Chair denying a committee which can do nothing but good for our meat trade?

Order.

Why are you denying the committee, a Cheann Comhairle?

Order. If the Deputy persists in disrupting the business of the House I shall ask her to resume her seat.

You told me there was no such committee. There is a committee. It met twice in the Department of the Taoiseach.

If the Deputy does not resume her seat I shall have to ask her to leave the House.

The committee was requested by the Taoiseach because he was not getting satisfactory answers here in relation to the beef trade.

This was requested by the Taoiseach.

Please, Deputy Doyle. I shall have to ask you to leave the House if you persist.

You denied there was such a committee, a Cheann Comhairle.

You will not interrupt from a seated position, Deputy.

They met in the Taoiseach's Department and you denied it. They met twice.

Count to ten, a Cheann Comhairle.

A well-timed intervention I suspect.

I am attempting for the sixth time to raise on the Adjournment the insistence by the Southern Health Board in preserving with the closure of 60 long stay beds in Tralee General Hospital.

I am aware of the Deputy's interest in the matter and I will communicate with him.

I would like to raise, at the fifth attempt, on the Adjournment the continual bombing campaign by the IRA of the north-south rail link at the Border and the threat to the lives and the jobs of the workers on both sides of the Border.

I will be in touch with the Deputy concerning the matter.

I raised a question on the Adjournment before about Tullamore Midland Bacon and Butter Company. I would like to raise this question again having regard to the failure to pay the workers their wages, redundancy or any other payment.

I recollect the debate on the matter. I will communicate with the Deputy. Let us now proceed to deal with the Finance Bill.

What I am about to say is being said in a spirit of the utmost constructiveness. It seems to me that Deputy Doyle's question a moment ago and mine last week and others just before the Easter recess would indicate that the Chair appears to be under the impression that in the replies he gives to Deputies in the House as to the reasons why their questions may or may not be allowed, his syntax is pellucid and the replies comprehensive and comprehensible but from the other side of the argument, the replies tend to be opaque, incomplete and are seen by Deputies as not really explaining the reason. With great respect, I suggest that the Chair should have his office look again at the terms in which he couches these replies so that perhaps some of the discussions we have here might be avoided and the Chair would not be under an obligation from time to time, as was suggested by Deputy Davern, of counting to ten. It would help the order in the House.

I will bear in mind what the Deputy has to say but I will tell the House I have the utmost confidence in my staff. We adhere to the best traditions of this House in accordance with long-standing practice, its rules and precedents and we do not deviate from that. I am very glad that Deputy Dukes is going to have this whole matter raised with the Committee on Procedure and Privileges so that we can clear up the matter for all time. If there is anything fundamentally wrong with the rules of this House and the manner in which I administer them, this House is supreme; let us change the rules and I will adhere to them strictly.

I ask the Minister for Finance to move that the Finance Bill be read a Second Time.