11 Mr. J. Bruton asked the Minister for Justice when he intends to bring proposals before Dáil Éireann to address the consequences of the Supreme Court judgment in the case of the Attorney General v"X" and other on 5 March, 1992.

73 Proinsias De Rossa asked the Minister for Justice if, in view of the commitments the Taoiseach gave during the Maastricht Referendum Campaign, he will outline when it is intended to introduce the legislation to facilitate the holding of a referendum to put beyond doubt the right of Irish women to travel and to have access to information on services legally available in other EC states; and if he will make a statement on the matter.

I propose to take Questions Nos. 11 and 73 together.

As the House will be aware, the Government have decided that three referenda will be held on 3 December next on amendments to Article 40.3.3º of the Constitution. The necessary legislation will be brought before the House very shortly.

Would the Minister confirm that a Government decision was made today not to amend or vary in any way any of the three proposed Articles, which the Government published last week, to be included in the Constitution?

I can confirm that the Government met today and considered these matters. They have decided that separate referenda will be held on 3 December to deal with the questions of travel, information and the substantive issue. Would the Deputy like me to read out the wording?

Would the Minister confirm that no changes have been made?

I can so confirm.

I was hoping to deal with Deputy Quinn's question before we move onto other business.

And mine also.

Would the Minister confirm that it is the Government's intention to seek to pass all Stages of this legislation in the Dáil next week and that the Bills will only be published tomorrow? Would the Minister not acknowledge that there is an extraordinary indecent haste in the manner in which the Government are dealing with these serious issues?

The Deputy is bringing in substantial new matter now.

As the Deputy said, it is my intention to publish the Bill tomorrow. I understand that under electoral law, and constitutional electoral law in particular, a referendum has to be held not earlier than 30 days and not later than 90 days after both Houses have cleared the legislation. If one moves backwards from 3 December one will come to the date by which it is necessary to have the matters cleared. I understand that the Whips will make arrangements to deal with the matter taking the timeframe into account.

For the benefit of the House, would the Minister clarify for us the reason 3 December has become the magical mystery date by which time the journey from legislation to referenda must be completed? Would the Minister agree that a more considered, detailed and less hasty approach to these measures may produce a better solution to dealing with the various issues that need to be addressed? Would the Minister and the Government at this late stage consider changing the date of the referenda and clarify the reason 3 December has become the magical mystery date by which we must all complete our work on what is difficult legislation?

We could have chosen the week preceding it but we would have had to alter our schedule by a week. I do not suppose it would be proper to have an election——

Would the election date have anything to do with it?

One has to pick a day——

Why 3 December? Why not next January?

I should say to the Deputy that a Government decision has been made in regard to that matter. I expect the Whips to make the arrangements for the debate that will be taken next week and the following week and that adequate time will be provided.

The Minister wants to ram the Bills through the House.

Would the Minister accept that it is an outrage on a serious and complex matter that the Government have now decided to railroad this legislation through the Houses of the Oireachtas in one week? Would he accept that this runs contrary to all democratic principles given that we are dealing with complex issues and constitutional matters? Will he accept that this would not happen in Romania some years ago?

I do not know the reason Deputies are pursuing this matter in this way. I accept that these are important issues and they will be dealt with in a responsible manner once the Bills are published. Having regard to the views expressed by some Deputies I understand that there is no difficulty with some elements of this legislation which is complex in many ways. However, adequate time will be provided to debate it. This is a matter for the Whips.

But we have not seen the Bills.

We have not even had a White Paper.

I think these complex issues have been well aired already. I am satisfied that the Whips will be able to make arrangements for next week to meet the Deputies' concerns.

I share the concern which has been expressed by other Deputies about the unbelievable haste attached to this programme of legislation. In relation to the referendum on the question of information, the question envisages legislation. Can the Minister indicate if the legislation which will be published by the Government before 3 December, the date of the referenda, will outline the circumstances in which the Government will restrict information within the State?

I did not say legislation was going to be published in that regard——

Will it be published?

I indicated previously outside the House that the amendment proposed which the people will decide upon indicates that it will be subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law. It would be preferable in advance of 3 December if a summary of the proposals to accomodate that were made known to the electorate. I think that is reasonable.

Good.

Will they be published?

Yes.

That is some progress.

The time for questions has expired but I will allow a brief and final question from Deputy Shatter.

The Deputy should not pre-empt Government decisions.

Would the Minister agree that constitutional proposals which will affect the lives of hundreds of thousands of women here deserve to be dealt with in a more responsible way rather than being guillotined and rammed through this House without the necessary detail and time being made available to ensure that the mistakes Fianna Fáil made on this issue in 1983 are not repeated in 1992?

Bunkum.

We are having an element of repetition.

I agree with the Deputy that what is involved in the substantive issue is the question of the protection of mothers and women and their entitlements. That is what lies behind the amendment.

There is not one woman in the country who believes that.

I wish the Minister could give us an acceptable wording.

On a point of order, I wish to protest at the very slow progress that has been made. This man will not be held accountable in this House again, as the Minister for Justice, before next February.

He is Minister for Justice, Deputy.

It is not fair to all other Members that we have got through less than 10 per cent of the questions.

I am sorry, but the Chair does not always get the co-operation he desires in seeking to make progress at Question Time. That disposes of questions for today.