First, I welcome the decision of the Irish people to support the children's referendum last week and to insert the proposed clause into the Constitution.

That decision was stained somewhat by the stark and blunt judgment of the Supreme Court when it essentially made it clear that the Government not only dismissed the McKenna judgment but was in breach of the Constitution in carrying out its own promotional campaign on the amendment. The Supreme Court was clear that there was a misstatement contained in the material produced by the Government as well as, "extensive passages in the booklet and on the website which do not conform to the McKenna" judgement, where "it was held that the Government in expending public moneys in the promotion of a particular result in a Referendum process was in breach of the Constitution.", and that the Government "acted wrongfully in expending or arranging to expend public moneys on the website, booklet and advertisements in relation to the Referendum on the Thirty First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill, 2012, ...".

For some reason, the Government obviously decided to formulate its own information and advocacy campaign parallel to the information campaign of the Referendum Commission and, presumably for its own political purposes, to use some of the taxpayers' money to advance its own situation. This is despite the fact that Mr. Justice Kevin Feeney, following his report on the referendum campaign on the fiscal treaty, stated that research found that dual campaigns cause problems and confusion. The Government had that report for quite some time and took a long time to release it. That should have been a warning sign to the Government not to go down the route on which it subsequently decided. In essence, what seems to have happened is that the Referendum Commission had its funding pulled back, the Government took a tranche of that funding and used it to produce its own materials. Others are suggesting that, because the Government was annoyed at the work of Mr. Justice McMahon on the Oireachtas public inquiries referendum, the Government decided it had to run its own campaign-----

Pull the other one.

-----and that it could not trust the Referendum Commission anymore. Did someone say something?

We are over time. Do not mind that.

I want to ask the Taoiseach some questions on this. Obviously, the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, took a calculated decision to proceed on this route of a Government campaign separate from that of the Referendum Commission. Will the Taoiseach outline why that decision was taken?

Did the Attorney General examine all of the information that was contained in the booklet and on the website prior to circulation? The Ministers, Deputies Varadkar and Fitzgerald, laid the blame on the Attorney General, and Deputy Walsh of Fine Gael went very far this morning when he stated that if the Attorney General played an active role in the final sign-off, then she would have to consider her position. If Government Deputies are saying this, it needs a response from the Taoiseach on the origin and sequence of events that led to this.

If that was a Fianna Fáil Attorney General, they would be looking for her head.

And Deputy Finian McGrath would give it.

First, I am happy that the people made a clear decision in endorsing the referendum proposal to give children recognition and protection in the people's Constitution, Bunreacht na hÉireann. It also falls to me to thank all the parties in the House for their contributions to the campaign. I thank the advocacy groups who spoke out and who campaigned for this. Most importantly, I thank the people who went out and voted, and clearly and specifically, those who gave a clear majority verdict in respect of this.

The McKenna judgment has been around for more than 17 years, with a second appraisal in 1995. No court has ever set out specifically what are the parameters, confines and meaning of the McKenna judgment.

The Government, in so far as putting this question to the people was concerned, followed a call more than 20 years ago by Mrs Justice Catherine McGuinness that the Constitution be amended. There have been all the different attempts over the years. Inside 18 months, we have put four questions to the people, including this one which has been endorsed.

The Government set out to uphold the principles that apply in this and the Minister, Deputy Fitzgerald, followed a clear line in dealing with the requirement to have information given to people and to deal with misinformation. After all, there were groups stating that there would be compulsory vaccination of children and the State might step in and prevent parents from bringing their children to Mass if that was their wish. There was a great deal of misinformation going around on this matter.

Deputy Martin will be aware that the High Court gave a clear 11-page judgment on the information in respect of the website, advertising and booklet, and what the Government was doing. Clearly, on 8 November, when the Supreme Court made its decision, the Government responded immediately, in fully accepting its decision and in acting accordingly.

It is important that we do not prejudice or comment unduly on the reasons the Supreme Court gave its judgment in the way it did. The Supreme Court has produced a preliminary judgment. It is important for Deputy Martin and everybody else to await the detail which will be outlined in the Supreme Court judgment in December and that the House reflect on that taking into account the background to this, the McKenna judgment, the question for future referenda and what, in respect of the people's Constitution, we as the Oireachtas should do for the future.

The bottom line here is that the people have changed the Constitution. They have gone out and voted by a clear majority to give children protection and recognition in the Constitution and the Government will now move on to introduce the necessary supplementary legislation to give effect to that and to change forever the nature of the way children were treated in this country. This amendment is for the benefit of society, in particular, children, those in vulnerable situations and those in the limbo land of foster care where a minority have no prospect of adoption. In that sense, I want to wait until I see the detail of the Supreme Court's analysis. The court is entitled to that, without deference or speculation, idle or otherwise, about the reasons it gave its judgment of the nature and in the way it did.

There is no speculation. There is no one adding any reasons. It is merely what was stated by the Supreme Court, that the Government was wrong and was in breach of the Constitution. Does the Taoiseach not get that?

It is preliminary.

We do not have to wait for a month.

It is a preliminary ruling.

Deputy Shatter does not get it.

This is the decision of the Supreme Court. I am somewhat concerned by the equivocal response of some of the Ministers, particularly the Minister for Justice and Equality, Deputy Shatter, suggesting, of course by innuendo, that the High Court is nearly as good as the Supreme Court, that the High Court said one thing, the Supreme Court said another, and we are very reasonable people in the middle.

Could we have a question, please, Deputy?

We in Fianna Fáil would not have the same intellect as Deputy Shatter, by any means, to put ourselves in the place of the Supreme Court.

The first part of that sentence is correct.

Nor would we ever attempt to second-guess the Supreme Court.

I ask the Deputy to pose his question.

That is for members of Fine Gael who are either in the Law Library or in government. Every now and again a bit of contrition would do no harm.

Deputy Martin will have to say a lot of prayers, if that is the case.

When the Constitution is broken by a Government, it is a very serious matter. It is a very profound issue, in fact. People were annoyed before the poll. The serious question is why we had to risk the referendum with something that was not necessary at all. The Referendum Commission system is actually working and has worked well in previous referendums, despite the Government's annoyance with the Oireachtas inquiries outcome, which was not justified at all. By and large it has worked.

Thank you, Deputy, you have put your question.

People trust the Referendum Commission and the independent judges who chair it in terms of imparting objective material.

They do not trust the Government.

Could we not resolve from now on, once and for all, that Governments do not get involved in that final phase of the campaign, in terms of trying to advocate a position using taxpayers' money? The McKenna judgment made it very clear and the Supreme Court has said that the Government was wrong. The Taoiseach should say "sorry" to the people because his Government got this one wrong. He should also make sure that in the future there is one, strong, objective information campaign put forward by the Referendum Commission. It should not be done by Government. It is up to the political parties to argue the toss between themselves and those who are for or against the question under debate.

The Taoiseach should apologise.

In his original question, Deputy Martin used the phrases "for political purposes" and suggested that the Minister for Children and Youth Affairs, Deputy Fitzgerald, had a political agenda and was following a particular line on this matter. He also said that perhaps it was something to do with Judge McMahon and the way he had handled a previous matter.

That is what some people are speculating.

That is absolutely irrelevant because there was no political agenda involved in this and it had nothing to do with Mr. Justice McMahon. As I have said already, we acted in good faith and wished to uphold the principles that apply here. Clearly, numerous surveys have shown that people wanted more information.

I have listened to all of the vox-pops and to the avalanche of cynicism about this but the fundamental issue is that a clear majority of people took the time to go out to vote for the referendum proposal which changes the treatment of children in the future. This issue has been debated for over 20 years but within 18 months this Government put the question and it has been answered very clearly. It is far more important than Deputy Martin is allowing. He should wait for the final, comprehensive reasons in the full judgment of the Supreme Court. What we have now is the court's preliminary judgment. It does not, for instance, spell out the paragraphs that are at issue in its decision.

We are not going to influence that, though. Anything I say will not influence the judgment of the Supreme Court. I hope the Government accepts that.

We do.

I am glad Deputy Rabbitte accepts it but the Taoiseach is suggesting otherwise.

It is absolutely critical that we do not interfere with the Supreme Court in making its decision and with the reasons for that decision. We should show the court due deference and allow it to produce its comprehensive, detailed judgment, due for publication early in December.

We are going to do that. We are not interfering with that process.

I await that judgment with interest. The Deputy is pre-judging. A great deal of misinformation has been put about.

Yes, from the Government side.

The Government had to correct a statement on its own website.

I looked, for instance, at a leaflet that went around Limerick which reads "Now is not the time for property taxes" and "why we are supporting the children's referendum".

What about the Government's leaflet?

These things cause confusion in people's minds.

I thank the Taoiseach. He knows the rules.

It was the Government that created the confusion. It is not even sorry about that.

We will move on from this. The judgment is very clear. Children have a new status in the Constitution and we will move on from that.

There will be no apology.