It is broader than that, Taoiseach.

I call Deputy Gerry Adams.

The programme for Government commits to holding a number of constitutional referendums, including one on Article 40.6.1 on the offence of blasphemy. This arises from the good work of the Constitutional Convention. The Taoiseach will recall that an English actor, Stephen Fry, gave an interview to Gay Byrne on the issue of faith and God and, as a result of a single complaint, we had the spectacle of Mr. Fry being investigated by the Garda Síochána on a criminal charge of blasphemy. That investigation is not now going ahead, which I welcome, but this story was widely reported in the international media with appropriate mocking commentary and some disbelief.

Blasphemy should have no place in the Constitution. The Minister for Housing, Planning, Community and Local Government, Deputy Simon Coveney, indicated several days ago that the Government may hold a referendum day next year to deal with the repeal of the eighth amendment and the extension of the vote to citizens outside the State. Will the Taoiseach give a commitment that the removal of blasphemy from the Constitution will also be dealt with or that a separate referendum will be held as soon as possible? Will he give citizens the opportunity to say clearly, "Down with that sort of thing", and allow Stephen Fry and everyone else to express an opinion without the threat of criminal proceedings?

I note the comments in the current controversy about this matter. I understand that there have been no public prosecutions for blasphemy under the 2009 Act. I also understand the last prosecution for blasphemy by public authorities in Ireland is thought to have been in 1855, which is quite a distance back.

The current statutory provision for the offence of blasphemy is section 36 of the 2009 Act, which defines what constitutes blasphemy and what defences and penalties apply. My party opposed the inclusion of the offence of blasphemy in the Bill at the time, but the Act was introduced following the advice of successive Attorneys General that it was required following the Supreme Court's decision in what is known as the Corway case in order to give legislative effect to the offence of blasphemy contained in Article 46.1.1° of the Constitution. The Defamation Act abolished the possibility, formerly available under common law, of a private individual bringing a prosecution for blasphemy. The Corway case was a rare example of such a private prosecution but was unsuccessful.

Deputy Adams quite rightly raises the point that a referendum must be held to deal with this matter. The Constitution adopted in 1937 provides in Article 40.6.1° that blasphemy is a criminal offence. This article describes the constitutional right to freedom of expression and its limits and states: "The public utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law." The previous Government agreed a referendum should be held on blasphemy. It is a case of Government finding an opportunity to deal with this. A number of other matters arise from the Constitutional Convention that are well recommended and on which it is agreed referenda should be held. Clearly, in respect of the Citizens' Assembly, a referendum will be required in due course on Article 40.3.3°.

I thank the Taoiseach.

I had originally thought it might be possible to hold a number of referenda on the one day, but when one gets into these matters and people begin to understand the fors and the againsts, the yes and the no-----

There will not be any fors.

-----it is not as simple as it might sound. There are quite a number of referenda backed up, and they take time-----

I thank the Taoiseach.

------with referendum commissions to be independent in their analysis and give people full information so they can vote Yes or No to whatever question is asked, and the matter of blasphemy is one such question.