I wish to raise the 28th Amendment of the Constitution Bill, which I received this morning. Other Deputies would have received it somewhat earlier. What clarity can the Taoiseach provide on its processing from here?

I understand there are seven propositions encompassed by the Bill. There are actually eight but one is the simple transfer of a section from the existing article of the Constitution to the new proposed article. Of the seven propositions, two are related to criminal law, with the other five related to issues of the upbringing or custody of children, welfare, care, guardianship, adoption etc.

Does the Taoiseach accept that these are two easily distinguishable and separate issues? One issue relates to criminal law and the protection of children from sexual predators and the other relates to the welfare of children. One has been the subject of detailed examination by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. There is a consensus on the question of the zone of protection for children among all parties in the House.

The other five proposals have not been the subject of any such discussion, although there is a necessity to tease out their implications. They are complex and there has been no national debate, which would appear to be required.

I remind the Taoiseach of the Whitaker review of the Constitution in 1996 when the question of a prohibition on two different questions of substantive different effect was discussed. Consideration was given as to whether it was permissible or if there should be a prohibition on two such different questions being taken in a single vote. The review of the Constitution concluded it could rely on the good sense of the Oireachtas to separate two such distinct issues.

When my colleague, Deputy Howlin, was being briefed by the Minister of State with responsibility for children, it was also Deputy Brian Lenihan's view. It was certainly his view in 2001 when he was chairman of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. As I understand, he has been stating he has an open mind on that issue.

We have not had the opportunity to discuss this in the House. The Labour Party agrees to proceeding as soon as possible with the absolute zone of protection for children and allowing adequate time for a national debate on the other five matters, which would make sense. This could be done in conjunction with the general election, for example, or sooner if the Government so wishes. We should take the issue and dispose of it as all parties in this House are agreed on the necessity to protect children in those circumstances and allow an opportunity to debate the other bundle of issues.

I have been fair, frank and open about this. I would be very glad to hear the Deputy's conclusions. He stated last week that if we published the legislation, he would examine it with legal and other advisers and give his view on it.

The outline of the legislative proposals lists four areas of legislation which can be addressed under the particular amendment, with legislation relating to sexual offences. A great deal of work has been done by the Joint Committee on Child Protection in this area and, in general, the Government accepts its recommendations.

That explains our position on the two issues that remain outstanding before legislation can be finalised. Yesterday we went through all the issues and the Minister of State, Deputy Brian Lenihan, went through all the points in great detail afterwards. We listened to the Opposition's comments.

Our view is that all these issues need to be dealt with. The Deputy has stated that five of the issues are not contentious. There are seven issues — the Deputy says eight — and six are not considered contentious. Some people may think two are contentious, although we do not. We believe we can engage on the matter and I would ask the Deputy to arrange for his spokespersons to enter into arrangements with us to consider the issues.

We would rather have one question but we are not absolutely embedded in that position. It is our preferred view and we believe it could be done. It does not create a difficulty. I have already given my view on timing. It is possible to proceed as we have proposed and we have been advised to do so in this fashion. There is no difficulty and we have cross-checked it with a large range of people, as have people in various organisations in the field.

We will listen to views and I have stated that we want consensus before we can go forward. I do not want to indicate that my position is the only one and that I will not listen to anyone. I am not saying that. Six of these issues do not create a difficulty and I cannot find anyone who would raise them as a problem. If there is a wish for a discussion on the other two we will have it.

My point is not that six of the proposals are uncontentious and two are contentious. Rather, my point is that they are distinctly different. It is claimed that some relate to the rights of children, with the others concerning the protection of children. The Joint Committee on Child Protection was referred to by the Taoiseach.

I am not even asserting that two issues are contentious as I have not concluded so for myself. These issues have not been debated. There has been no national discussion on them.

Given that the genesis the situation was last May and that the time that has passed is not the fault of this side of the House, does the Taoiseach see merit in proceeding with the two amendments on the zone of protection for children and the issue of soft information immediately or contemporaneously with the general election so that both can be put to the people as quickly as possible?

I do not claim to speak for all parties in the House, but they are of a like mind, as demonstrated at the joint committee. We could proceed on that basis and provide adequate time for all those who want to discuss complex and complicated issues relating to the family and the balance of rights between children and the family. We should be more concerned about getting this right than doing it in a hurry. Is there not merit in there being two separate questions?

The Deputy's time has concluded.

The Taoiseach seems to be saying he is not wedded to a single question. The Whitaker review considered the question of whether there should be a provision prohibiting the submission of a Bill containing a number of proposals for amendments with different substantive effects for decision by the people in a referendum by means of a single vote. It concluded that while there should not be such a prohibition, one could rely on the common sense of the House to distinguish into separate questions where matters have different substantive effects. That is manifestly the case in this instance and there is a strong argument for dividing the issues.

I have listened to the arguments and I will not get into an argument on this because I want to try to get agreement on it. It did not start last summer. Some of the other issues were raised in the Judge Catherine McGuinness report of 1993, moved onto the constitutional review of 1996 and into the debate on the Children Acts between 1996 and 2001. Other issues formed part of the adoption review, which has gone on for a long time. There are different issues concerned with trying to help the rights of parents and families.

The wording, we believe, strikes a balance between the rights of children and the rights of parents and families by replacing Article 42.5, which contains, according to our advice and constitutional advice, limited protections for children, with a new dedicated children's article. It contains a number of different, substantial and practical elements, all of which will protect the rights of children. None will undermine the role of parents or the constitutional safeguards for the family. We have been careful in all our discussions to try to define these.

Many people who have examined this and been involved with it believe it is commendable to have such a balance. As the Deputy knows, there is a broad view. I accept that people need time to examine the wording and that they cannot do it the day following publication, but I ask the Deputy to examine the wording, take his advice and to come back to us.

We believe we can do this in an integrated way. I accept that some people have argued that, perhaps, there is an alternative to putting it into one question with this wording. The people working for the Government on this came to the unanimous conclusion that this was the best way to do it, but I am not saying that there are no other views. We are prepared to listen to those views and, as soon as the Deputy has had a chance to put those to us in discussion, we will be glad to listen.

I would like to try to deal with these issues during the current Dáil or, if they have not been dealt with comprehensively and fully, to bring them as far as we can. The House must reach an agreement on how best to do that. This is our proposal and it is our view that we could take the Bill through, but if the Deputy wants to talk to us, as he obviously does, we are open to that.