It is proposed to take Nos. 1, 3, 4 and 5. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders, that: 1. Nos. 1 and 3 shall be decided without debate; 2. The speech of each Member called upon to contribute to the resumed debate on No. 4 shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; 3. The following arrangements shall apply in relation to the proceedings on Second Stage of No. 5: (i) the opening speech of a Minister or Minister of State and of the main spokesperson for the Fine Gael Party, the Progressive Democrats Party and the Technical Group shall not exceed 45 minutes in each case; and (ii) the speech of each other Member called upon shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; and 4. The Dáil on its rising today shall adjourn until Tuesday, 15 November 1994.

Is the proposal that Nos. 1 and 3 shall be decided without debate satisfactory?

Item No. 3 refers to three Bills, two of which have not received any consideration on Committee Stage, and requires the Select Committee to report back to the Dáil by 28 November. Committee Members on this side of the House feel that this timeframe may be too short for these Bills to be considered properly and fully. May I suggest an extension of a week on the 28 November deadline, by agreement?

The Government Chief Whip will reply to this point.

At least two of the Bills went into Committee before the summer recess. However, if there is a difficulty I will consult with the other Whips and rearrange the timeframe. We need to get some Bills back from Committee.

Of course.

In regard to the Consumer Credit Bill and the Casual Trading Bill, particular issues arose and consultations had to take place. If Committee members have a difficulty with the timeframe I will consult with the other Whips.

Once the date of 28 November is put into an order of the House it is rigid.

We can always change it.

The date should be changed by agreement and if the Select Committee reports earlier well and good.

In regard to the Casual Trading Bill and the Competition (Amendment) Bill no amendment has yet been reached on these substantial Bills to which a considerable number of amendments has been tabled. These Bills were not taken by the Committee during the summer and I find it hard to understand the sudden urgency. In regard to the Consumer Credit Bill, great progress has been made but we await a Government decision on some elements and this is holding up progress.

How does the House wish to proceed?

I have no problem in agreeing to take item No. 3 without debate if the House agrees to substitute. say, 7 December for 28 November.

That is acceptable.

Is that agreed? Agreed. I observe Deputy Deasy offering. Is it on another matter?

Yes.

I have to deal first with the Order of Business, and I will then call the Deputy. Is the proposal that Nos. 1 and 3 shall be decided without debate satisfactory? Agreed. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 4 agreed?

In regard to Nos. 2 and 3 time limits have been imposed. While I did not introduce the amendment I moved here last week, because the Whips meeting has not yet taken place, regarding legitimate interventions with the consent of the speaker in possession I want the Government Whip to understand that I will be dealing with this issue again subsequent to our Whips meeting when I hope we can arrive at a satisfactory conclusion.

I take it that the proposals for dealing with No. 4 are satisfactory and agreed to. Are the proposals for dealing with No. 5 agreed? Agreed. Is the proposal that the Dáil at its rising today shall adjourn until Tuesday, 15 November satisfactory and agreed? Agreed.

The Programme for a Partnership Government stated that the Government would establish a national education and certification board to give Irish students and trainees awards that would be recognised internationally. It stated that legislation would be required but that pending the legislation an interim board would be established. My understanding is that legislation has not been introduced and the interim board, promised in the Programme for a Partnership Government, has not been put in place either. In view of the fact that it is important that training qualifications here should be recognised — I understand some dispute between Departments is holding it up — I ask the Taoiseach when this board will be established and the legislation promised in the Programme for a Partnership Government will be introduced?

This matter is still under discussion.

The Minister who are in dispute are members of the same party, so we cannot claim that this is a split in the coalition. I ask the Minister for Enterprise and Employment, Deputy Quinn, and the Minister for Education, Deputy Breathnach, to come to a decision. Government is about making decisions. I ask them to make a decision because there are Irish trainees whose qualifications——

The Deputy may not debate the matter now.

——are not being recognised because of the inflated degree of importance attached to turf by two Departments.

The Deputy has made his point.

I would not go down that road if I were the Deputy.

I do not mind travelling any road.

What about the Moriarty report, Deputy Quinn? The Minister will recall from the Moriarty report of October 1993 that we were to have this board.

Deputy Quinn should not think that veiled attempts make any difference. I do not mind what he says.

Let us hear Deputy Mary Harney without interruption.

Would the Taoiseach like to comment on the fact than an investment in his company by the Masri family was guaranteed by a State bank, ICC——

Clearly that is not one for the Order of Business.

——and I wonder why this matter was not brought to our attention earlier after the Tánaiste read the file.

Deputy Harney, there is an ongoing debate before the House and you are anticipating that.

This is a serious matter. Would the Taoiseach like to comment on a State bank guaranteeing a loan to the Taoiseach's family business? Is it a fact?

Deputy Harney, it is not in order and the Deputy knows that full well.

There is very little in order in this House with the result that everything has to be said outside.

The Chair administers the rules of the House, nothing more and nothing less.

The Taoiseach may wish to avail of the opportunity to comment on this matter. It is a serious matter that a State bank guaranteed a soft loan in the Taoiseach's family business.

If the Chair rules the matter out of order, no one may intervene or follow up that matter. I am calling Deputy De Rossa.

It is widely accepted and widely recognised that what is being rehearsed is a naked Progressive Democrats inspired pot boiler of old rubbish being regurgitated again. An article in The Irish Times today aptly describes it as a Progressive Democrats benefit gig.

It is a pet food scandal and the Government are the pets.

I take it Deputy De Rossa is giving way to Deputy McManus.

Will the Taoiseach answer the question. Did a State bank guarantee the loan?

Order, please.

Recognise it for what it is, Deputy Harney.

Answer the question.

It is Progressive Democrats inspired.

In view of the Kelly Fitzgerald case may I ask the Taoiseach when he intends to introduce the promised legislation on domestic violence and barring orders? Will he ensure that the terms of reference in relation to granting barring orders are extended sufficiently to include relationships other than marriage or cohabitation?

Is this promised legislation?

It is legislation we have been promised for some time and it is becoming more urgent by the minute.

It is on the list for this session.

Deputy Deasy has been offering for some time.

Two years ago a promise was made by the Labour Party that, if elected to Government, they would upgrade the regional technical college in Waterford to the status of university. Is legislation being prepared to live up to that promise?

The Higher Education Authority are studying that.

The Tánaiste and the Minister of State at the Department of Agriculture, Food and Forestry, Deputy O'Shea made the promise.

The matter is being studied by the Higher Education Authority at present.

This is a Jim Kemmy-type promise made in the heat of an election not to be believed.

I wish to raise two matters with the Taoiseach. First, in 1992 the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications introduced a ministerial policy directive in regard to competitive tendering for State bodies. In view of the confusion in the public mind surrounding the sale of a CIE shunt yard in Cork is it proposed to introduce any amendments to that directive?

I thought the Deputy wished to raise something which was in order. Clearly it is not.

I am rarely out of order. I wish to ask the Taoiseach if it is proposed to introduce any amendment to that ministerial policy directive?

If there is legislation involved I want to help the Deputy.

Yes, the legislation was introduced in 1992 by the Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications. Obviously, there is a need for an amendment to it.

It is a matter for a good question which I am sure the Deputy will avail of in the future but he would prefer to raise it before next Thursday.

The second matter I wish to raise is the fact that the Whips agreed that the electoral Bill would be debated in the House this week. A portion of that electoral Bill concerns the setting up, on a statutory basis, of a commission to examine constituency revisions. Will the Taoiseach inform the House the reason the Minister for the Environment announced this commission on an ad hoc basis yesterday evening thus pre-empting any discussion in the House and showing gross disrespect for all the elected Members who may have strong views on this issue with a view to the possibility of changing the terms of reference or whatever? In view of the fact that the Taoiseach and his Cabinet are adamant that the Government will last for two years what was the reason for the rush in announcing——

The Electoral Bill, 1994, is on the Order Paper before us today.

Ministers choose to make announcements as they wish. One of the most important announcements made outside this House was made in Canada in the late 1940s.

This is not Canada, this is Dublin.

This Bill is a parachute for Fianna Fáil whenever they want to jump out of Government and this is 1994.

They are getting tired.

They are beginning to show battle fatigue.