It is proposed to take Nos. 12 and 5. It is also proposed, subject to the agreement of the House and notwithstanding the Order of the House of 14 May that: (1) business shall be interrupted at 11 p.m. tonight; (2) No. 5 shall be taken from 5.45 p.m. to 8 p.m. and the following arrangements shall apply: (a) the opening speech of the Minister for Agriculture and Food shall not exceed 30 minutes, (b) each of the groups — as defined in Standing Order 89 — shall be entitled to not more than 30 minutes in the aggregate in the course of the debate, (c) the Minister for Agriculture and Food shall be called on not later than 7.45 p.m. to reply to the debate and (d) if a division is demanded thereon such division shall be postponed until 8.30 p.m. tonight and (3) Private Members' Business, which shall be No. 24, shall be brought to a conclusion at 8.30 p.m.

I must now ask if the proposal for dealing with No. 1, that is, business to be interrupted at 11 p.m. tonight, is agreed?

I do not wish to create a row this morning or to go over old ground — I did not participate in the row yesterday — however, I want to raise the point that an hour and a half was lost yesterday on the Local Government Bill and an hour and a quarter will be lost tonight. Could the Taoiseach, through the Whips, arrange to have that time restored, because yesterday we only reached amendment No. 5 out of 298 amendments? I am just asking that at least the time that was originally allocated be restored. Perhaps the Whips would discuss this.

The Deputy will observe that as a gesture and in an attempt to meet that point, the Government have allocated an extra half an hour this evening. We were due to rise at 10.30 p.m. In fact we are adding another half an hour for the Local Government Bill.

But we have lost two and three-quarter hours.

It is not my fault.

On the same issue, the Opposition spokespersons should be enabled to deal with the Bill in an orderly way. If Committee Stage will not be concluded until 11 p.m. tonight and Report Stage is to be commenced at 10.30 a.m. tomorrow, it is a bit unreasonable for the Government to expect us to resubmit our Report Stage amendments and have some analysis between 11 o'clock tonight and 10.30 a.m. tomorrow. Perhaps the Whips could meet to discuss the practicality of trying to deal with a Bill in this impossible fashion.

Otherwise I take it that No. 1 is agreed?

It is not agreed. We express our disagreement.

There are dissenting voices. Is No. 1 agreed? Agreed.

In relation to No. 2, and 2 (b) in particular, I want some clarification from the Taoiseach. Is the phrase "each of the groups — as defined in Standing Order 89 —" intended to specifically exclude the Progressive Democrats from contributing to this debate? If the Government desire that they be allowed some time, Sir, I certainly would allow some time to the spokesperson from the Progressive Democrats if he would like to avail of it.

That is very magnanimous.

I am in a very generous mood these days, a Cheann Comhairle.

That is an interesting coalition.

I certainly would facilitate a spokesperson from the Progressive Democrats who seemed to have a lot to say about this matter in years gone by.

The situation is that this is a Government motion supported by the Government but if Deputy Spring has time to spare I suggest he look up at some of the dissidents in his back benches and give it to them.

At least mine come to the Dáil, not like yours.

I am very glad to say that not only has the Deputy a militant tendency but that he also has a tendency to rise to the bait.

It takes one to know one. What did the Taoiseach do yesterday?

The proposal for dealing with No. 5 is agreed. I must now ask if the proposal for dealing with No. 3, Private Members' Business, is agreed? Agreed.

Can the Taoiseach confirm that the Government intend to proceed with the proposal to establish a committee on crime and a foreign affairs committee? There have been suggestions that that is not going ahead.

That has been raised many times here.

There is no change in the situation.

When can we expect proposals to be made?

As soon as the Deputy gives me time to address my mind to it.

The Government's legislative programme for a variety of reasons is now in serious difficulty in terms of the time this House will have between now and the middle of July when it is expected to rise. At the same time the Government representatives are negotiating on behalf of this Republic far reaching changes in relation to economic and monetary union and political union within the EC. Because of that, and for no other reason, will the Taoiseach at some stage indicate to this House when we will have a properly constituted foreign affairs committee that will allow this House to do its business? I suggest, Sir, it is no longer sufficient——

The Deputy has made his point.

——for the Taoiseach to make some regal, dismissive remark that he has not sufficient time.

That is not a question, it is an argument.

It is not an argument. I am asking the Taoiseach when this House will be told of his delivery on the promise he gave to us to establish this committee.

I have answered that.

The Taoiseach has not answered the question.

It should not lead to argument and disputation of this kind.

This is ridiculous.

Deputy Quinn, please desist. The Deputy has asked a question and he has received an answer. That must be adequate for the time being.

He did not receive an answer.

I received a reply——

In view of the constant job shedding and job losses, has the Taoiseach revised his strategy in regard to the economy? Will he arrange that there will be no further job shedding in the public service because of the obvious recession that is now upon us?

The Deputy must raise that at another time.

This requires a major change in the Government's strategy because they have not yet admitted that the recession is upon us.

This is not related to the Order of Business. I observe Deputy Sherlock seeking to rise.

There is no other way of raising this than the Adjournment Debate in July or whenever and at that stage we will have another 10,000 people unemployed.

Deputy Mac Giolla, please desist. Deputies must have regard to what can and cannot be raised on the Order of Business. This is certainly not in order.

Job shedding in the public service——

This is not in order, Deputy Mac Giolla.

Perhaps Deputy Mac Giolla will give us the benefit of his views as to whether our economic problems should be solved on the basis of the new social democratic policies of The Workers' Party——

I will be delighted at any time to give my views. It is about time a change——

——or whether the old Stalinist group in his party will still prevail as they did at his party's ard-fheis.

The Taoiseach displayed considerable interest in that party's views in 1982.

I am calling Deputy Sherlock.

While I appreciate that the question has been raised previously, I deem it necessary again to ask the Taoiseach if it is intended to introduce legislation extending eligibility for health services to category 3 as is promised for 1 June of this year. There are rumours that because of lack of funding the issue is being shelved.

I will be able to reassure the Deputy on that point. The legislation is proceeding as planned.

As a representative of a registered political party which is not a group within this House I must once again protest at the unavailability of any speaking time on the motion re confidence in the meat industry. It is an absolute disgrace.

I wish to raise on the Adjournment the question of the urgent need to preserve the archaeological site recently discovered at Usher's Quay.