It is proposed to take Nos. 14, 1 and 2. It is also proposed, notwithstanding anything in Standing Orders that: (1) in the case of the Second Stages of Nos. 1 and 2 (i) the opening speech of the Minister or Minister of State and the speeches of the main spokespersons nominated by Fine Gael, Labour and Democratic Left shall not exceed 30 minutes in each case; (ii) the speech of each other Member called on shall not exceed 20 minutes and (iii) the Minister or Minister of State shall be called upon to make a speech in reply not exceeding 15 minutes; (2) the time limits set out in 1 (ii) and 1 (iii) shall apply to the resumed debate on item No. 14. Private Members' Business shall be No. 35, Motion No. 36.

Are the proposals for dealing with the Second Stages of Nos. 1, 2 and 14 satisfactory? Agreed.

I regret having to raise this matter in regard to promised legislation but I am sure the Taoiseach will agree that any discussions between party leaders, designed to achieve a consensus on a matter of such importance as the various constitutional referends that are now in consideration, should be conducted at all times in good faith by all sides. In that light I have to ask the Taoiseach why it was that he did not draw to my attention — and presumably to the attention of the other party leaders — the fact that the Government had been advised by the Attorney General, as we now know, that they would need to have substantive legislation to accompany their proposed amendment on the substantive issue? Why is it that the Taoiseach who had that advice, and presumably was leading a Government who acted on that advice, did not draw attention to the fact that such legislation was being prepared and would have to be drawn to the attention of the other party leaders in the course of discussions which have taken place since last Wednesday?

I want to repeat to this House what I said last week. I set out, and I still set out, in good faith to have consultation with all the party leaders. I went through that process last week. I made it clear in this House at all times that I would be as informative and helpful to all the political leaders as I could possibly be, bearing in mind the constraints on me in relation to any discussions that led to the taking of any decisions at Government level. Every Deputy, and every political leader, in this House knows that quite well. I do not propose today to make any comment in relation to any story that appeared in any newspaper from an unattributable source. Everybody knows exactly what is the position, that the document I gave was as informative and as helpful as it could be. That is what I promised to do in the House and that is what I have done. I am available, as I have been for the last three days, for constructive consultations if that is so required.

Whereas the Taoiseach may like to reside in the sanctuary of not commenting on any story that has been in the newspapers in recent days, does he not realise that I — I speak for myself — and I assume the other leaders of the Opposition parties are at a very serious disadvantage in relation to any contribution we can make to dialogue given the fact that the Taoiseach withheld information — what I would consider to be the key information — in relation to this whole issue? I am referring to the fact that the Attorney General advised him, as has been suggested by other leaders and myself, that legislation would be necessary and that legislation would be the only course of action that would remove the doubt from this issue. Perhaps the Taoiseach could now reconsider his position and make that information available. It is a fruitless situation unless that information is made available to us.

The Deputy knows as well as everybody — he heard it in this House and from me in person — the constraints on any Government in relation to documentation or discussions that take place on any decision.

(Limerick East): That is absolute rubbish.

So the Supreme Court is absolute rubbish, is that what the Deputy is saying?

That is not the way to deal with the issue.

We now know where we stand. The Government decided to deal with this issue by referendum, not by legislation.

The Government legal advice on Fr. Paddy Ryan was read into the record by the Taoiseach's predecessor.

The Government decided to deal with this issue by way of referendum, not by legislation. That is the position.

That is not what the Attorney General recommended.

I wrote to the Taoiseach yesterday asking if he would make a statement in the Dáil today clarifying the utter confusion that now reigns in relation to the Government's proposal. We have had a series of anonymous Government spokespersons, various Ministers and Ministers of State, all expressing different views as to the intentions of what the Government were about and, indeed, whether the existing wording that the Government propose will continue to be the Government wording. Will the Taoiseach specifically tell us the source of the briefing document which he submitted to myself and the other party leaders in Opposition? Is the information in yesterday's report correct, that the purpose of including the exclusion of health as a reason for abortion was to avoid a life shortening situation as being a cause for abortion? The Taoiseach will recall that I was assured by him that that was not the case.

Let us have brevity. The Chair has allowed much latitude on this subject on the Order of Business and is concerned that it is coming up again and again despite the fact that a big debate is pending on the issue.

The Taoiseach has indicated that he wants to reach some kind of a consensus. It is not possible to reach consensus when it is clear there are differing views within the Government as to what is intended.

We are having a statement from the Deputy which is not good enough.

The Taoiseach should make a statement in the House outlining what precisely is intended.

I have allowed the Deputy quite some latitude.

The Government decision is quite clear, the intentions of the Government are quite clear.

They are anything but clear.

Please, Deputy De Rossa.

Some people may want to get into the confusion business but they will not lead me into that business.

Why does the Taoiseach not come into the House and say it succinctly?

Do Deputies want me to answer or not? First, the Government made a decision that this matter will be handled by means of a referendum and not by legislation. Second, the intention is very clear. What the substantive issue in the referendum is about is to ask the Irish people whether they want to accept the Supreme Court decision, as given in the X case, as the basis for legalised abortion in Ireland. Do they want to accept suicide, as a basis for legalised abortion?

The Taoiseach is getting more confused with every sentence.

It is a simple question. The words, by and large in so far as they could be incorporated in this amendment, are taken from the Supreme Court decision. When one seeks preciseness and certainty in so far as one can have it in relation to any words, you go to the people who will be the final arbiters of the constitutional amendment. Incorporating as many of their words as possible into the amendment gives it the greatest level of certainty that one can give it. The Irish people will decide the issue. The Irish people are quite clear in their minds as to what is being asked. We are not changing any iota the tests laid down in the Supreme Court decision. We are asking the people to decide "yes" or "no". If they decide "yes" that will be incorporated as an addition to Article 40.3.3. We all know the words of that Article. If they vote "no", as I have said, and I expect it would be the view of most other people, we will have to proceed to deal with the effects of the court case by means of legislation. That is it.

Deputy J. Bruton rose.

Before Deputy John Bruton intervenes again may I say — and the House will agree — that I have given quite a good deal of latitude on the Order of Business to this matter in recent days because of its clear gravity. However, I cannot permit the Order of Business to be turned into a mini Question Time on the issue. I am very conscious, as indeed Members must be, that the Bills in connection with these matters will be coming before the House, I understand, next week and Members will have full and ample scope to give vent to their feelings on the issues.

Indeed I think, subject to correction, that the Taoiseach and the Leaders of the Opposition parties may have further discussions on the matters in the meantime. I will not permit many more questions. I will hear Deputy Bruton briefly and the other leaders briefly — I observe Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla indicating — and I am then going on to other business. There can be no mini-Question Time on the issue now.

My concern relates solely to the legislation the Government are or are not promising on this matter. Would the Taoiseach agree that he gave me to believe at our meetings that the only legislation on the substantive issue he had in mind would be legislation which would be introduced if the people rejected the Government's proposed constitutional amendment? Would he further agree that this conflicts directly with reports we now have that the Attorney General advised the Government that legislation would be needed even if the people accepted the Government's constitutional amendment. Does he understand that that information should——

Will the Chair please be obeyed in this matter and will the Deputy respect the latitude I have already given him?

Would the Taoiseach not agree that if that is the case he should, in good faith, have drawn it to my attention in our consultations which were designed to achieve consensus?

I made it quite clear when Deputy Bruton and I met that the Government had decided to proceed by way of a referendum and not legislation. That is absolutely clear and unambiguous. I do not think we should be dealing with these matters here anyway. However, in view of the fact that Deputy Bruton has been allowed to raise this question, I should say that I thought these were subject matters which we could, in good faith, have dealt with in the consultative process.

The Taoiseach is withholding information.

In regard to the other question raised by Deputy Bruton about reports in a newspaper, I have made it abundantly clear that they know quite well that it is not the practice and I am not prepared to comment on reports in any newspapers which come from an unattributable source. I am certainly not going to comment on any discussions which took place around the Cabinet table. They know that this would be wrong, it has never been done here and it is not in accordance with the law. That is the precise position; it is nothing more or less.

Deputy Dick Spring.

Why did the Taoiseach conceal the Attorney General's advice?

I reject any suggestions made in this House that I concealed, withheld or anything else, or tried to mislead anybody. I was more than generous——

Not only did he conceal the advice but he rejected it.

Order.

I was more than generous with my information and I will continue to be so within the constraints laid down.

Not only did he conceal the information but he rejected it and did not explain it.

Deputies will have an opportunity of expressing their feelings on these issues when the legislation comes before the House, I understand next week.

I will be brief, a Cheann Comhairle. I regret the fact that the Taoiseach's generosity does not extend to allowing us have the Attorney General's advice as it strikes me that the Attorney General's advice is correct, and unfortunately, the course of action the Government is taking is incorrect. May I ask the Taoiseach to elucidate the situation in relation to the famous Protocol to the Maastricht Treaty and the bearing his legislative programme now has on that Protocol? Does the Protocol have to be amended or deleted and have discussions taken place in relation to it?

It is not proposed to delete the Protocol.

Deputy De Rossa, a brief relevant question, please.

Perhaps the Taoiseach will say whether the statement, which I understand is from an anonymous source, in a Press report that the time of consultation has been extended to 6 p.m. tomorrow is true or not? In relation to the documents which he supplied, may I ask the Taoiseach whether these documents came from the Attorney General or whose advice they are? If this advice is based on what the Attorney General has told him, why does he persist in denying us access to the further information and advice which it appears the Attorney General gave him in relation to the Protocol——

There is a degree of repetition involved here.

——the wider issue of abortion and the need for legislation even if the Government wording is carried?

I am sure the Deputy will be delighted to know that the consultative process will continue until 6 p.m. tomorrow evening, the maximum time which could be allowed. A request was made to me last week to stretch the time until Tuesday or Wednesday this week and I am happy to have been able to accommodate all the Deputies concerned. In relation to the question of access to documents which are part of Government business, I want to say for the third time today that access will not be given to any documents——

That is not the point.

——in relation to the Cabinet decision.

What is the Taoiseach hiding?

I am hiding nothing.

You are. There is something the Taoiseach does not want us to see.

If the people over there made better use of the consultative process instead of running to the Press we might make further progress on this issue. However, be that as it may——

There is something in the Attorney General's advice which the Taoiseach does not want us to see.

The Government has already made its decision that this matter will be dealt with by way of referendum and not legislation.

I accept that.

That is the Government's decision and the basis on which it will proceed.

Has the Taoiseach not been advised in relation to——

Please, Deputy.

I will not subject myself to questioning across the floor by the Deputy.

Deputy Tomás Mac Giolla for a final question on this matter.

I seek clarification on the point raised by Deputy Bruton in regard to the statement made by the Taoiseach to me and others last week that if the referendum was not passed there would be legislation. If the referendum is passed, can the Taoiseach say if that will be the end of the matter?

If people concentrated more on the wording and the referendum they would see how simple the words are. It is incredible to think that the official spokesperson for the IMO can say, "We understand the wording and we can work with the wording". People who are trying to create confusion about the wording should look at it. As I have said from the start, if there are words which are better suited——

The Taoiseach is not answering the Deputy's question.

——to do the job I am willing to hear them but, as of now, I have not heard wording that is better than what we have.

Answer the Deputy's question.

If anybody has better wording, let them give it to us. If the referendum is rejected, as I have already said, legislation will be introduced to deal with the effects of the Supreme Court decision in the X case. Legislation will be introduced to——

That was not the question.

With all due respects, Deputy O'Keeffe, that was the question. I was asked if legislation would be introduced——

If the referendum is passed, will there be legislation?

As I said, the wording is very simple. It is amazing that, unlike Deputies here, the IMO can understand the wording without seeking any further explanation.

The Taoiseach is making a dog's dinner of this whole issue.

If the referendum is passed, will that be the end of the matter?

That will be the end of the matter.

If there are no other matters on the Order of Business I am proceeding to item No. 14.

On the Order of Business, may I ask the Taoiseach if he can give an assurance to the House that the legislation amending the Broadcasting Act will be dealt with before the end of the session so that the current capping arrangements on RTE finance can be disposed of?

It is part of the list of legislation to be dealt with during the session and every effort will be made to deal with it during this session.

(Limerick East): Can the Taoiseach say when the Finance Bill will be introduced this session?

I hope it will be in early November.

May I ask the Taoiseach when it is proposed to publish the waste management Bill which has been long promised and which is urgently needed? It is not included in the schedule of legislation but it has been promised on many occasions during the year. It is a matter of urgency.

It is in the early stage of preparation.

It is not listed.

Can the Taoiseach say if the social welfare consolidation Bill promised by the Minister for Social Welfare is in the course of preparation and when it might be brought before the House.

It is unlikely to be introduced this session; it is in the course of preparation.