asked the Taoiseach whether he will arrange for the attaching to the next official printing of the Constitution containing amendments made since the last such printing, of an appendix containing the Transitory Provisions Articles 51-63, last officially printed in 1938.

I am arranging to have the matter considered in my Department and I will communicate with the Deputy as soon as possible.

Would the Taoiseach ask his Department to confirm that one of his predecessors, the former Deputy Lynch, gave a similar undertaking some four years ago? This is a very small matter measured against the very prodigal use of printing by the State in every other context, but the Taoiseach might agree it is strange that part of what was enacted as the Constitution — even though transitory and a very small part — is not officially available in print, nor has it been for a generation.

Starting from scratch and knowing nothing about this, I must say I would have shared the Deputy's puzzlement over this. The reason why there is a problem is because the Constitution provides that the transitory provisions must be omitted from all official texts of the Constitution which are published. The Deputy's question related to attaching to the next official printing of the Constitution containing amendments made, an appendix containing the transitory provisions, but there is some doubt as to whether attaching them in any appendix to the Constitution would or would not constitute its inclusion in an official text of the Constitution. Therefore, the question arises as to whether they might not best be published separately. I would like to be clear which is the best way to proceed constitutionally before taking a final decision, but I can assure the Deputy that one way or the other they will be published.

Would the Taoiseach consider that this might be overcome and any possible legal difficulties surmounted by printing these few provisions, even as a separate leaflet which might be offered to the public side by side with the official text, even if not actually included?

I would be perfectly agreeable to that. The only hesitation is that I would like to establish more clearly whether there is a real inhibition against their inclusion as appendix as suggested by the Deputy before I take the alternative and, from a practical point of view, less preferable course of printing them separately. A decision will be taken in the near future and one way or the other they will be printed.

Does the Taoiseach feel that he would be justified in spending public money printing transitory provisions which are now of no effect whatsoever and, while they may be of interest to professors of jurisprudence in Academe, surely these learned institutions should go to the expense of publishing them themselves because at this stage they are of interest only to professors and their students?

I understand they are of interest to the courts. From the information supplied to me they have been involved in a number of cases up to and as late as 1973, or possibly even later. There were seven cases in all where these transitory provisions have arisen. It seems most unsatisfactory that this material is needed for the hearing of constitutional actions right across the decades, and up to relatively recent times, they could be required again, and they are not available in print. The small cost involved is, I think justified in view of the importance from a continuing point of view of these transitory provisions.

Will the Taoiseach, with all due reverence, permit me to disagree?

I would not regard that as a question. I am calling Question No. 3.

I am not disagreeing, but may I cite the cases——

Let the lawyers print them for themselves.

In re McGrath and Harte, 1941 Maunsell v Minister for Education and Breen, 1940; The State (Killian) v Minister for Justice, 1954; Foyle Fisheries Commission v Gallen, 1960; Sullivan v Robinson 1954; Andrews Productions v Gaiety Theatre, 1973; Ormsby v Ormsby, 1979. I do not know what the Deputy is disagreeing about.

I refuse to waste public money for the sake of Deputy Kelly's professional interests. This is special pleading.

While I am only a humble college lecturer, I deprecate any sneers at professors.

And they come very badly from a party which was founded by a professor.

Deputy Kelly is trying to put his hand in the public purse. Shame on him. He should publish his own——

It would take the sale of many copies of the transitory provisions to pay for Knock Airport.

That remark is doubtful and maybe on reflection the ex-Taoiseach would withdraw it.

What remark? I made several.

The Chair understood Deputy Haughey to say that Deputy Kelly was putting his hand in the public purse. That is unworthy of Deputy Haughey.

It is not unworthy of him, but entirely in character.

I would be very happy to withdraw it and to put it differently, to the effect that Deputy Kelly is seeking to have public moneys expended for his own convenience.

I would be loath to make an issue of such a footling and fiddling point, but on one occasion I have paid for the printing of these provisions out of my own pocket. I am concerned only that what is the law of the land should be available to the people.

That is not a question. I am calling Question No. 3.

I name Deputy Kelly for being disorderly.

I am calling Question No. 3.