asked the Taoiseach when he proposes to hold talks with the leaders of other political parties to discuss the full constitutional implications of the recent Supreme Court judgment on the Single European Act for other international treaties.

The Departments concerned are examining, with the Attorney General, the complex issues raised in the Deputy's question. When the examination has been completed, I will be in touch with the leaders of the other political parties in the House.

Is the Taoiseach aware that, in the course of the debate on the Single European Act, the Tánaiste informed the House that there was an urgent examination in particular of the constitutional implications of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and that it was anticipated that because of its importance that examination would be concluded fairly quickly? Has it now been concluded and, if so, what is the result of it?

The examination is urgently under way. It has not yet been concluded. In relation to all of the issues which arise out of the Supreme Court judgment on the Single European Act all the fall-out implications are being included in that examination and, as I undertook to the House, when that examination has been concluded I will be glad to talk to the political parties in the House about what course of action might recommend itself to us arising out of that examination.

Are all the treaties being examined simultaneously or is priority being given to some of the more obviously urgent ones like the Anglo-Irish Agreement?

The whole situation is being examined in its entirety.

When is it anticipated that this will be completed?

I cannot say, but I will let the Deputy and the leaders of the other parties know when it has been completed.

If it appears possible that a further referendum is necessary does the Taoiseach anticipate holding that before the end of the year?

I do not want to pre-empt any decision of that kind.

Does the Taoiseach not recall that during the debate on the referendum Bill he indicated that these discussions and considerations would take place during the summer, immediately after the referendum? In the light of the debate we had in this House on the referendum Bill and of the public debate that has taken place since, and which, I am glad to say, with a major input from my party has concluded successfully, would the Taoiseach not agree that it is urgent that this matter be dealt with immediately? As all of the questions that arise have been clarified and put before the public, is it not now up to us in this House to take the necessary steps in that regard?

In a statement which I will be issuing this afternoon on the outcome of the referendum I will be acknowledging gladly the contributions which particular political parties in this House made to the successful outcome of the referendum.

They will not include Fianna Fáil.

The Deputy need not worry about that. The referendum we have had and the effort it caused to all the political parties in this House was made necessary by the mishandling of the Single European Act, in particular by Deputy Peter Barry as Minister for Foreign Affairs.

That will not wash.

I suggest to all the Deputies who are offering that there is absolutely no need for anybody to become excited about this matter. I gave an undertaking to the House that these matters would be urgently examined and that when that examination was completed I would be in touch with the leaders of the political parties. I think that is a very constructive way for the Government to approach this issue. It is in sharp contradiction to precedents set on previous occasions.

Has the Taoiseach's consideration of the necessity of having a foreign affairs committee composed of both Houses of the Oireachtas with terms of reference concluded? Will he indicate to the House whether he agrees in principle with the establishment of such a committee?

I have not come to any final decision about the desirability or need for the establishment of such committee. I propose as a first step to re-establish the committee who are responsible for examining the secondary legislation of the European Communities.

Is the Taoiseach not aware that the terms of reference of the Oireachtas joint committee to which he refers preclude them specifically from dealing with most of the matters which were discussed under Title III?

I am so aware but there is a statutory obligation on us to re-establish that committee and I propose to proceed as regards that obligation first.

Does the Taoiseach not agree that the fundamental issue in the referendum had to do with the relationship between the competence and extent of the Government's powers, in other words the extent of the powers of the Executive as against the extent of the powers of the Judiciary? Does he agree also that neither he not any other member of his party or anybody else outside this House envisaged that question towards the end of last year? Would he not agree that the issue is clear enough now in the light of the debate we have had to enable us to proceed quickly to clarify the matter and to propose the required constitutional amendment?

I will proceed as quickly as possible, but surely the Deputy must be acutely aware that these are very complex issues and that it was failure to go into them thoroughly on the last occasion that brought us to the stage where we had to have a referendum. I do not intend to rush into anything until it has been fully and carefully examined in detail by all the authorities available to the Government.

Would the Taoiseach not agree that a large part of the problem we have had during the last few weeks——

I had not finished speaking.

——arose directly from the Taoiseach rushing into something——

The Taoiseach has indicated that he has not concluded his remarks.

——as Leader of the Opposition during last year?

I had not finished speaking. This Government have picked up the pieces left by the previous administration and put them together again so that now we can continue with full——

In view of the further judgment which may be expected from the Supreme Court on the question of the constitutionality of the Anglo-Irish Agreement and of the fairly widespread political awareness that the Taoiseach favoured in the recent referendum, a broader based amendment which was rejected by other members of the Cabinet, will he now regard it as imperative that, rather than be forced by another Supreme Court judgment one way or the other, he should have those discussions with the party leaders and that they should be held, with all due respect, in an atmosphere of less retrospective recrimination about the previous Government's performance?

First, I would like to pay tribute to the Deputy whose role in the recent referendum campaign was entirely honourable, responsible and mature. What I am offering to the House here is fairly unprecedented in its generosity. I am prepared as Head of the Government to enter into constructive and meaningful discussions with the leaders of the other political parties to see whether we can come to a consensus on what needs to be done. As regards the opening sentence in Deputy Desmond's supplementary question, it is not very wise to say what we can or cannot expect from the Supreme Court on any issue.

Question No. 5.

Is the Taoiseach satisfied about the constitutionality of the Jurisdiction of Courts and Enforcement of Judgments (European Communities) Bill which has been placed on the Order Paper since the Single European Act judgment? Some doubt was raised about that during the debate.

The Deputy can take it that the Government will not bring forward legislation of that nature unless we are reasonably satisfied as to its constitutionality. Perhaps what is in the Deputy's mind is that it is not too easy these days to predict what will or will not be found to be constitutional.

You should not blame Deputy Peter Barry for that.

I would like to remind the distinguished senior representative from the city of Cork that it was I who questioned that previous outgoing administration as to whether they were wise in not having a referendum.

I have called the next question.

Would the Taoiseach not agree that what he questioned in December was the constitutionality of Title III of the Single European Act? The rest was found to be constitutional.