It is proposed to take No. 12. Private Members' Business shall be No. 23.
Order of Business.
May I ask the Taoiseach about the promised legislation to provide for the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty? The ratification of the Treaty is very important for this country for a number of sound economic and social reasons. Would the Taoiseach agree that in the best interests of the passage of this legislation he should desist from impromptu and ill-considered comments on the matter? Will he allow those who wish to put forward serious arguments in favour of the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty to do so without his assistance?
The legislation to provide for the holding of a referendum on the Maastricht Treaty will be published very shortly. I would be happy to let my case stand on the Maastricht Treaty if the Opposition desist from putting down questions. However, if they insist on getting information, it is my duty to respond to such requests.
It is just confusing.
It is as distasteful for me as for any other Member to have to state the factual position. We all want to join together in rectifying the legal quagmire in which we have found ourselves——
——which the Taoiseach created——
——and compounded——
——and that is the Government's intention. We have no other intention — good, bad or indifferent. I have been accused of many things in my day but until I came into this House, never was I accused of threatening and bullying women.
The Midland muddler strikes again.
This is too serious a matter for the Taoiseach to have made such impromptu comments.
I am sure the Taoiseach is aware of the difficulties his remarks of yesterday have caused and I am also sure he is aware that the Labour Party have circulated a Private Members' Bill which is aimed specifically at allaying those fears and ensuring that the right to information and the right to travel are clarified prior to the referendum on the Maastricht Treaty. May I ask him if the Government have considered this Bill and, if not, will they do so as a matter of urgency?
The Government's position has been made abundantly clear by me on many occasions. The Government are considering a full response to the problems arising from the right to travel, the right to information and the substantive issues arising from the interpretation of the Supreme Court decision, and we will bring forward our proposals on this package in due course.
This morning the, Eleventh Amendment to the Constitution Bill, 1990, was circulated. Will the Taoiseach indicate when it is proposed to debate this Bill in the Dáil. Will he indicate also if, having reflected on the matter, he intends to withdraw the crude attempt to terrorise Irish women to vote in favour of the Maastricht Treaty on the basis of a false interpretation——
That is a twisting of words.
This matter should not give rise to argument. We had some long deliberations on questions pertaining to this matter yesterday——
I asked a legitimate question.
——but a question in respect of when it will be introduced is quite legitimate.
The Government Bill is being printed and it will be published very shortly.
(Limerick East): We have it.
The debate will start next Tuesday.
I have a message for the Taoiseach. Let me tell him that he did not scare women, he did not intimidate them by what he said yesterday, he outraged them.
I thought we were having a legitimate question on the Order of Business but this is clearly not so.
The Taoiseach has to be told that he treated women like small bold children.
I am now proceeding to deal with the business of the House proper. Deputy Jim Mitchell is offering.
It is extremely difficult for women's voices to be heard on this debate.
This House will have ample time to debate the pros and cons of this issue.
I have to try to finish what I am saying or else, a Cheann Comhairle, you will have to put me out of this House.
The Deputy should not threaten the Chair in this fashion. There is no need for it.
I am raising a matter on the Order of Business.
The Deputy will have ample time to ventilate her views on this matter. It is not in order now.
I demand the Taoiseach clarifies his position——
I must ask you, Deputy Fennell, to resume your seat.
——on the right to travel and the right to information.
If Deputy Jim Mitchell does not offer, I will proceed to the Order of Business proper.
The Taoiseach is behaving in a way that is most disturbing and I demand that he reassures us and makes a statement clarifying this matter.
Since Deputy Fennell is the only woman who has stood up in this House to raise this matter, she should be heard and get an answer from the Taoiseach.
There is ample time to ventilate your views, Deputy, but this is not a matter for the Order of Business.
The women of Ireland will learn their lesson from what happened here.
Does the Taoiseach propose to make a statement on the role of the Attorney General, which seems to be changing on a weekly basis? Yesterday the clear implication was given that the Attorney General had, in fact, made——
I feel sure Deputy Higgins will find a suitable way of raising that matter. Clearly it is not in order now.
One point that is very much in order is that until recently we understood the Attorney General has a clear constitutional position. Yesterday the Taoiseach — he may want to clarify to the House — gave the impression that the Attorney General was interpreting his role in one fashion should a vote be "yes" and in another fashion should a vote be "no". In the course of that debate, the Taoiseach suggested——
Please, Deputy Higgins, we cannot have a rehash of yesterday's business this morning.
That is what the Taoiseach said yesterday.
The matter raised by the Deputy is for another time. I am calling Deputy Shatter.
Is there going to be a referendum on the role of the Attorney General?
A good question Deputy. Perhaps you would put it down.
In relation to the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill, 1992, which is being circulated this evening and which I understand will be taken next week, may I offer the advice to the Taoiseach that when you are in a hole it helps to stop digging.
Be original; these are things you read in the newspaper.
Perhaps you would reconsider the Government's approach to this entire issue.
(Limerick East): I think everybody appreciates that there is great concern and, indeed, misunderstanding about certain events. I would ask the Taoiseach to arrange to bring forward the debate on the Estimates for the Taoiseach's Department and particularly the debate on the Estimates for the Attorney General's Vote so that we could properly debate in this House the conflicting advice given by the Attorney General.
I think there is a misunderstanding by some people, maybe mischieviously so, about the role of the Attorney General.
The Taoiseach has created it.
On the advice given to me, I have made abundantly clear the constitutional position in a non-governmental role of the Attorney General. His actions in the past, while distasteful to the vast majority of people, were upheld in law by the High Court and Supreme Court. We want to change that situation as soon as we can.
That remains the law until we have a domestic referendum.
I have spelled out exactly how that can be achieved: no bullying, no threats, just the factual position.
Deputy Mitchell, do you have a brief question? I called the Deputy earlier.
I hope Deputies who are orderly will not be disadvantaged. In relation to the proposed referendum, can the Taoiseach clarify when the referendum Bill from the Department of the Environment is likely to be issued and when will it be taken? Will it be in advance of the Eleventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill or after it?
I have already stated that the Bill will be debated next Tuesday, 5 May 1992.
I am calling Deputy Hogan for a final question.
Is the Taoiseach likely to send for Sinéad O'Connor for some advice on this matter?