Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

We can be blamed for many things but not that. My understanding is that every application for divorce had to be accepted by the then President of the Executive Council.

My question relates to section 2(3) in particular where reference is made to the Bill Of Rights 1688. The approach taken by the Minister and his colleagues is to put to one side and to repeal sections or parts of the Bill of Rights, but to leave other parts in place. Will the Minister of State inform the House why this approach is being taken as there are two reasons one would think it should be otherwise. First, one would think that if a Bill of Rights is being repealed, it should be repealed in toto. Second — Senator Mansergh made this point in the course of Second Stage — given the connection of the Bill of Rights 1688 to one particular tradition on this island, would it not be more sensible to approach this from the perspective of repealing it in toto or section by section? What is the rationale for the proposed way of doing it?