Léim ar aghaidh chuig an bpríomhábhar
Gnáthamharc

Seanad Éireann díospóireacht -
Friday, 30 Apr 2004

Vol. 176 No. 9

Twenty-seventh Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2004: Second Stage (Resumed).

Atairgeadh an cheist: "Go léifear an Bille an Dara hUair anois."
Question again proposed: "That the Bill be now read a Second Time."

There is an interesting parallel between the issue of electronic voting and the issue before us. As regards the former, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, flushed with success, infused with second termism and with no room for doubt in his mind, convinced the Government, his party, backbenchers and members of Cabinet and both Houses that his approach was correct. Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform accept the close parallel between his colleague's conduct and his contemptuous dismissal of the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission within an hour of them being made?

It is vital that we place on the record the views expressed by the Human Rights Commission whose job is to offer a view. It stated that the issue of Irish citizenship must be viewed in the context of Irish immigration and asylum policy, which is not adequately grounded on human rights principles that promote the protection of all persons. That is a statement of fact and is on the record. We, as parliamentarians and public representatives, are required to take this view on board. The commission went on to state that the proposed amendment seeks to remove a category of persons, notably children born in Ireland to non-national parents, from qualification for Irish citizenship. Certain aspects may be changed afterwards in the legislation if it goes through, but we are currently dealing with one piece of legislation. The Minister's forebears, to their great credit, influenced the framing of the Proclamation which promises to cherish all children of the nation equally. This line was unfortunately never allowed into the Constitution. The Minister has turned upside-down the core principles of his predecessors. That is appalling and I am on their side against the Minister.

The Human Rights Commission stated that a notable feature of the Constitution is that some of the rights contained in the Constitution are explicitly linked to citizenship, whereas others are not. The Minister stated in his speech that the acceptance will not have the slightest effect on the way our citizenship laws operate at present. That is a true statement but is slightly fanciful as it gives another impression to the casual reader. The commission stated that even though it does not change the operation of the law, a notable feature of the Constitution is that some of the rights contained are explicitly linked to citizenship. The Minister dealt with aspects of that but he was unconvincing. His argument was weak. The commission is well stocked with lawyers who have been able to come up with these conclusions; they are not lay people sitting around the table interpreting the law.

The issue of most concern is the idea that we are bound not just by the Constitution but international treaties and conventions on human rights. The commission concluded that under a number of those treaties to which the State is a party, Ireland has accepted obligations to guarantee rights equally to all persons, specifically all children, within its territory without discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, ethnic background or other status. The Minister dealt with that comprehensively. However, his conclusion did not grow logically out of the points he made. The differential treatment likely to result between citizen and non-citizen children may constitute unlawful discrimination under international law in respect of a new category of non-citizen children.

Now that is fanciful.

That is a view and that is how lawyers make their money. People have different views.

Not every view is as good as every other view.

I grew up in a house where there was a view that teachers should never become Ministers for Education, doctors should never be Ministers for Health and that lawyers should never be Ministers for Justice. The more I see, the more I agree with that view. Lawyers make very good Attorneys General and very poor Ministers.

What about accountants being Ministers for Finance?

I want to make another point on that. I agreed with the Minister on the issue of a non-citizen. The Minister did not deal with the place of the family in the Constitution and he might do so in his response. We will now have different categories of people within the family. That was never contemplated by the Constitution. That is an issue which needs to be spelled out. There could be two children in the same family, yet one could be a citizen and the other a non-citizen. That could easily happen. That is something that was never contemplated in terms of cherishing the children of the nation equally, as the founders of the State felt they would do in 1916. In fairness, I do not think later drafters of constitutional matters ever contemplated this either and that is why we need to look at this issue.

We need to deal with this issue by recognising there are huge differences of interpretation, opinion and consideration of it. As I said at the outset, I do not believe the Minister is racist and I will defend him in that regard. I do not believe he is motivated by racist motives nor do I believe that is an issue. I would say clearly and unambiguously that we should have orderly, regulated and controlled immigration laws. I will support them, and I have done so in places where it is unpopular to do so. It should not be left to racists or to people who want to leave the door open to everybody. That is not the way to do it.

I ask the Minister to do what his colleague, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, did and hand this issue over to a commission which is unbiased and has no political connections, ask it for its view and let us be bound by it. He should send the argument to third party arbitration. There are no winners and no losers. Let us do that.

We are not governed by arbitration.

The group to whom I suggest we send this issue is the Human Rights Commission in order to get a clear view on it. I will oppose Second Stage of the Bill.

I welcome the Minister to the House. He should be congratulated on the amount of time he spends in the House partaking in debates. I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this debate. Unfortunately, much of the discussion to date has centred on the timing on this referendum rather than on the substance of the proposal. I hope that with the definitive decision to hold the referendum on 11 June next, the debate will move on. Today, we in this House have the opportunity to move this debate in the direction of the substantive issue, to address the real substance of the amendment and in doing so, set about the process of highlighting the issues in question. This is the only way we will bring clarity to the proposal, which is what is required at this juncture.

If we value our Constitution, its principles and its interpretation, we need honest and reasoned debate. Recently, I spoke in the House about the proposed timing of the referendum and I pleaded with all politicians and candidates in the forthcoming election to refrain from using this debate as a forum for inciting racist views and thinking not only among themselves, but among the public at large. It is necessary to do so again today. Playing with people's emotions on the strength of those less fortunate than themselves for political gain is a despicable act and such behaviour should be seen for what it is and should not be tolerated or rewarded by any person who calls themselves Irish.

Citizenship brings responsibilities as well as rights and under Article 9 of the Constitution, fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens. We must ask ourselves if we are adhering to that principle if we allow citizenship to be acquired, maintained and passed on without requiring even the most minimal connection or loyalty to the State. Any decision on citizenship policy should have at its core the aim to strengthen the fabric of Irish society, but defining Irish society in an ever-changing world, particularly in an ever-changing Europe, is a problem. Is it that which existed here for many centuries? I do not believe so. Society is organic; it is ever-changing and ever-growing. What we perceive as society today would be unrecognisable to someone alive 50 years ago or even 50 years before then.

Society has benefited from numerous waves of settlers, although some would say it has been the victim of the same phenomenon. The Vikings, the English, Scots, Huguenots, Jews and Muslims have all contributed to a greater or lesser extent to our society. I have no doubt that today's immigrants will also make their contribution.

Citizenship is precious but not exclusive. It should be granted to those who through their commitment have shown they are willing to work to better the lives of all who reside in the State. Qualifying adults as well as children should be given the opportunity to obtain citizenship. While it may take a generation, I am confident the indigenous population will accept the ideal of a multicultural society. We should also consider the attitudes of immigrants. While some who have received Irish citizenship do not and probably never will feel Irish, their children will. Allowing them to contribute to society ensures their children will grow up respecting the country which allowed that to happen. They will not end up resenting a country which marginalised them.

In proposing change to the Constitution, we should not lose sight of the rights it affords to all people, not only those who hold Irish citizenship. Our superior courts have constantly upheld that the Constitution entitles all people the right to be treated with respect, decency and in a non-discriminatory fashion. They have rights as human beings regardless of their citizenship status and are entitled to be protected. The net point is that while they may not be entitled to citizenship, they are entitled to human rights. Global change and European enlargement have given rise to an unstoppable tide of people who are termed non-nationals. There is a need for us to adjust to this tide. We require a degree of flexibility to legislate as appropriate in any given circumstance. In saying this, I am conscious that the constitutional review group chaired by Dr. T.K. Whitaker reported in 1996 that, due to its complexity, citizenship would be more appropriately dealt with in legislation than in the Constitution. The referendum proposes precisely that the detail of citizenship law should be decided in legislation rather than in the Constitution.

Having examined the proposed amendment, I am satisfied that the referendum will not alter the right of individual Irish citizens or those entitled to Irish citizenship to automatically confer citizenship on their children. Nor will it alter the rights of Irish citizens north of the Border to automatically confer Irish citizenship on their children. Just as Irish citizenship should not be up for sale to those who can pay a significant price, it should not simply be given away free to people with little or no link to the country but who can arrange for childbirth to take place here. I welcome the Government's proposal to abolish schemes of investment-based citizenship — the passports for sale scheme — in the Bill. While the Minister should be congratulated for having already ended the scheme by administrative decision, it remains on the Statute Book. People without social, historic or cultural links to Ireland should not be able to freely confer Irish citizenship on their children. Children currently born in Ireland will, in turn, be able to confer Irish citizenship on their own children and grandchildren even if they never reside here.

Irish citizenship automatically confers citizenship and residency rights within the European Union. Economic migrants seeking to gain permanent entry to the EU will logically look for the weakest link in the chain to achieve their goal. Ireland is in danger of becoming that weakest link. As legislators, we have a responsibility to ensure that is not the case. To put it simply, if the amendment as proposed is passed, constitutional entitlement to Irish citizenship will be reserved to children with at least one parent already an Irish citizen or already entitled to Irish citizenship. The entitlement to Irish citizenship of others will be decided by laws to be passed by the Oireachtas.

The purpose of the proposed constitutional amendment is to restore to the Oireachtas the power to legislate on future acquisition of Irish nationality and citizenship of persons born in Ireland neither of whose parents is, or is entitled to be, an Irish citizen.

Previous campaigns to amend the Constitution have been hampered because, while the proposed change was clear, the question of what legislation would be introduced following approval of that change was not. The Government has set out its detailed legislative proposals should the proposed constitutional amendment be passed and has published the draft Irish nationality and citizenship (amendment) Bill 2004. I congratulate the Minister on this initiative as there can be no ambiguity as to what is proposed. If the amendment is passed, the Houses of the Oireachtas will be entitled to propose and amend legislation to meet the many challenges that lie ahead for an ever-increasing mobile society.

Policy on citizenship needs to be carefully regulated and capable of responding to change. It is more appropriate, therefore, to set out immigration policy in our laws than in the Constitution. Laws can be easily and flexibly amended; the Constitution cannot and should not be easily amended. That is the logic behind the Government's constitutional proposal. We have to ask why a person applies for citizenship. Just as marriage is a commitment to a relationship, application for citizenship should show a commitment to the State. If we grant citizenship to children born of people legally residing in the State for three years, should we also consider granting citizenship to the parents? Is it credible that parents who have worked here on renewable visas should, if their employment were to cease, be required to leave taking with them their Irish citizen child? Perhaps we should explore this point further and consider granting such people citizenship.

Let us take the example of a couple who have worked here legally for five years contributing to our society and who, after three years, have a child legally entitled to Irish citizenship. Should they too be entitled to apply for citizenship? In this regard, a profession which comes to mind is the Filipino nurses contributing to our health service. In this way we may help foster a sense of belonging and thus aid integration.

What of a woman who becomes pregnant and claims the unknown father is Irish? What if he does not come forward or cannot be found? Will legislation place on her the responsibility to prove parentage, through DNA and so on, in order to safeguard the constitutional rights of the child of an Irish father?

We also need to ask how under Article 9 of the Constitution, which states "fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens", we reconcile a child born in Ireland not being entitled to citizenship with a 30 year old Australian, by virtue of an Irish grandparent, being entitled to such citizenship? Could such a person be using the grandparent rule to gain access to the EU? Is this a lesser sin than the sin of coming to Ireland to have a child for the very same principle of access?

We should also ask how much we value our citizenship given that in the not too distant past we granted passports to those who invested in this country. I wonder, as a show of commitment, whether applicants for citizenship should be required to relinquish the nationality of their birth and not be allowed retain dual citizenship.

I hope such questions are posed throughout this debate because it is only in posing questions that we will come to a greater understanding of the complexities of the situation, complexities that lead me to believe, as Dr. Whitaker reported in 1996, that citizenship is more appropriately dealt with in legislation than in the Constitution, as stated earlier.

I firmly believe the case has been made that the issue of citizenship is best dealt with by legislation. In supporting the amendment to the Constitution, I do so in the hope the Houses of the Oireachtas will in future be able, by means of legislation, to deal with this complex issue as the situation demands.

I again refer to the timing of this referendum. We must ensure that a coalition of extremes from both sides of the debate is not allowed to hijack this issue and defeat the silent majority's viewpoint. Having looked at the alternatives before us regarding the timing of this referendum, I accept that no matter what date was chosen there were different considerations. While I would have liked greater consultation in advance of the proposal, I am satisfied that the pending legislation will facilitate such consultation. I hope that appropriate time will be afforded to debate the legislation and allow all the complexities to be worked through. The main advantage of 11 June is that an acceptable degree of voter turnout is assured. I place my trust in the silent majority of the people to exercise their democratic right responsibly.

I am convinced that immigration and citizenship will be on our agenda for some time to come as we embrace the new realities of a changing society. Debate on this issue should not be impeded due to constitutional difficulties. In passing this amendment to the Constitution, we will remove that obstacle and allow the Houses of the Oireachtas to respond to public concern now and in the future in the form of legislation, which will be tabled and debated in a reasoned manner and in accordance with the fundamental principals of democracy. That is what is needed and that is what this amendment will achieve.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I admire his combative and assertive style and his fighting spirit. We all know the Minister is an able and assertive advocate and if I was in trouble, I would rather have him defending me than some wishy-washy type.

The Minister might try to have the Senator put away.

Will the Senator name the wishy-washy types?

I am not prepared to go that far. As Senator O'Toole said in another context, I know the rules.

I am glad Senator Minihan said there should be more consultation, with which I agree. As other speakers said, I also accept that the Minister is not a racist. When I spoke during the debate on citizenship held here on 7 April, I said that I did not want the Minister to stand accused of wrongly using the race card. Thank God, that has not happened and I hope it will not happen, as the Minister would be wronged if that happened.

I was struck by the points made by Senator O'Toole about the Human Rights Commission. Would the Minister not agree that we should take the view of that body as an independent objective assessment? Would it not be right for us to listen to that body further as proposed by Senator O'Toole? Senator Minihan briefly touched on the recommendations of the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. As a layman, I am slightly confused about the argument between Articles 2 and 9. I very much appreciate and like the wording used by the Minister at the end of his speech that fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens. Senator Terry made the argument that we should amend Article 2 rather than Article 9. Presumably there are good reasons, to which the Minister may refer when he responds at the end of this debate.

When we addressed this matter here through a motion tabled by my party on 7 April, I said that citizenship is fundamental, vital and something in which we take great pride, and it should be guarded jealously. I was pleased to hear the Minister state his firm conviction that Irish citizenship is something to be respected. It carries with it responsibilities to one's fellow citizens and to the entity which bestows the status of nationality and citizenship. This is something to which I am sure we all subscribe.

Given our fine constitutional democracy, I am sure the Minister will agree there should be the widest possible consultation on this issue. We are capable of this. I still do not see the need to hold the referendum on 11 June. I realise we are saved from the further complication of e-voting but this is still a lot for people to take on at once. Dealing with the issue hastily without the widest possible consultation might damage our democracy, which I am sure is not the Minister's intention. We should not leave ourselves open to that possibility. It would be preferable to have all-party agreement on an all-encompassing package of measures. Unfortunately, this will not be achieved by virtue of the intent here, which is a great pity. This is what is required because it is a complex issue. Even though it is just a proposal to amend Article 9, in effect, Article 2 is also involved.

The Minister outlined the effect four parts of the amending legislation on citizenship will have, which I welcome. I am confused about Article 2. This is an amendment to Article 9 which will enable the Citizenship Act 1956 to be amended. I welcome the Minister's comments on this. Senator Terry referred to how these two articles will interplay and so on. It is a pity a Green Paper was not published, which would have facilitated wider consultation on the matter. Senator Hayes was concerned on a previous occasion about the effect of this on the North. There is still confusion about the issue. We must consider whether the referendum will remove some of the rights conferred by the Good Friday Agreement. The Minister and the British Government have moved to satisfy people that this will not be the case. Are the political parties in the North, which we are so anxious to bring with us, satisfied in this regard?

I am amazed at the Government's haste in wanting this matter to coincide with the local and European elections. In the past, there were clear signals that this would not happen. We are aware that the debate could lead to a heightened atmosphere because, as several speakers said, it is a sensitive subject. No one will heighten it in this House because we are all too responsible. There are related issues of race, culture and identity. I was pleased to hear the Minister say the Government's proposals are colour blind, which is a good clear signal.

I am not satisfied about the practicalities at this time. It would seem that the Government is not doing enough to neutralise the suspected race factor. From the tone of his speech, it appears the Minister suspects that it may be almost impossible to have a rational debate on all of these issues. Somebody will step out of line somewhere. We need a political consensus and more dialogue on the issue. I strongly appeal to the Minister in that regard.

Thankfully, we will not have e-voting at the forthcoming elections on 11 June. I am glad for all our supporters that our tallymen will at least have one last hurrah and they will enjoy it.

Come back, all is forgiven.

It may not be their last hurrah. I welcome that decision.

The Minister has clearly set out what is intended and what in his view the Bill will not do. The Minister stated that the proposals are colour blind. If my eyesight was a bit better, I might take up a few more points, but this macular oedema plagues me.

The people need more time and I genuinely do not think it would damage the process if the matter was not rushed at this stage.

May I take the opportunity to welcome Senator White to the House? I thinkshe represented many of us in seeing thatjustice would be done. As I said to Senator Ross, we would not have to send out rescue parties forher, she would be returning in clouds oftriumph.

I welcome the Minister to the House. I am a little surprised that Article 2 should be a matter of such controversy so soon again, but no matter. I do not think we need more time. The contributions from the different sides indicate that the debate is virtually exhausted. There was a great deal of hyperbole but I am glad we have not heard too much of it in the House today.

One of the more absurd pictures conjured up was that the Minister was somehow a puppet of his malign and manipulative colleagues in Fianna Fáil, Ceaucescu's children, to coin a phrase. It is just totally out of character. I have followed the debate and I know the way the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform has been thinking in the past four or five years and it is something that has evolved out of concerns that have gradually become greater.

I do not think there is any electoral advantage in this proposal. I hope that the Opposition parties are not preparing an alibi if they do not do quite as well in the local elections as they hope — so that they can then put it down to the "so called racist referendum". The way to ensure the least opportunities for anybody to profile themselves on the subject is to hold it with elections which will take up the attention of politicians more than the referendum itself. I endorse what the Minister said about immigration policy, which must be fair, firm, just and humane. Every effort is being made to achieve that. I also support the Minister's point that we will still be at the very liberal end of the EU spectrum concerning citizenship and immigration.

Although I am not dismissing the argument concerning maternity hospitals, I do not regard it as being the decisive one.

I agree with the Senator.

Perhaps the masters of those hospitals found themselves in an awkward spotlight that they had not anticipated. As the Minister said, they did not urge him to hold a referendum or provide him with the wording for it, but they did ask that something should be done. It was then up to the Minister and the Government to work out what that was but, obviously, very little could be done without proceeding in this way.

I wish to read into the record a few paragraphs from my article in The Irish Times of 24 April 2004:

What Dan Boyle of the Green Party correctly called "the back door to EU citizenship" is actually the key issue. We are not in the position of the US and Canada, vast countries with only one or two borders. We are an island, where a person can, on the face of it, acquire both Irish and EU citizenship without ever entering the jurisdiction, and without the parents intending that the infant should have any further connection with Ireland [North or South].

We do have obligations to our EU partners. An EU about to take in 10 new members [tomorrow] is hardly "fortress Europe", but if we think EU immigration policy should be more liberal we should concert that at EU level [rather than maintaining a particular anomaly here].

Irish citizenship policy has gone back and forth somewhat since 1922. The right of a person born in the Free State to Irish nationality and citizenship was written into Article 3 of the 1922 Constitution, so this is not the first time that birthright to Irish citizenship was in the Constitution. The matter was shifted to legislation in 1935 and 1956. The 1956 Act contains a bald statement that "every person born in Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth" but then went on to qualify it in a later article requiring a person in the North, not otherwise a citizen, to declare themselves to be one.

Until recently there has not been a fundamental problem because the only people who wanted their children born in Ireland were those with strong Irish associations. It is a new problem that has arisen and perhaps our situation was highlighted by putting it into the Constitution, but I suspect the problem would have arisen anyway. In other circumstances, it could perhaps have been dealt with by legislation but it is now being dealt with by way of the Constitution.

I am proud of what the Government did in renegotiating Articles 2 and 3, which the country supported. I am glad the solution to this problem has been found in making an alteration to Article 9, so that we do not have to alter a jot or iota of what is in the Good Friday Agreement.

The people of Northern Ireland are so defined in annexe B of the Agreement, so what we are doing is entirely consistent. The British Government has reinforced that in a joint statement and, therefore, there are no Northern implications. There will be no rioting on the Falls Road or the Shankill Road when this measure is passed. There are internal arguments going on in the North as to whether the Agreement can be renegotiated. Naturally, parties tend to pick up anything to hand and run with it, but only to a certain extent. I do not see that there will be any significant implications in it.

In the manner of 17th century French satirists, I must pick up on a point made by our most perfect Minister. He said that Article 9(2) reminds us that fidelity to the State and loyalty to the nation are fundamental duties of all citizens but he has got that the wrong way round. Maybe he could argue that fidelity and loyalty are synonymous, just as nationality and citizenship are.

Last week I mentioned the interpretation of Article 9(2) for those outside the jurisdiction. I presume it is to be interpreted and maybe one day the Supreme Court will interpret it as requiring loyalty to the State of those who live under its laws and, in other circumstances, respect for the State. That seems to be a logical, common sense interpretation.

I endorse something Senator Coghlan said in that it is probably good that we are not putting more on people's shoulders than they can bear. Maybe it is good that electronic voting is not going ahead and that people will not be confronted by too much novelty. It is obviously a case of saying to our tallymen: "Come back, all is forgiven and you have a long future ahead of you."

I hope the tallypersons have a long future ahead of them. They have done nothing that needs to be forgiven, as they always did an excellent job and gave us wonderful information. I am glad Senator Mansergh welcomed the decision on electronic voting and the Government's acceptance of the decision is also welcome. I hope time will now be given to consider electronic voting fully and to ask whether we really need it at all.

That point is apt because a similar principle applies to the Bill. It is important to give enough time for full consideration of issues. Electronic voting did not have constitutional or legal implications but people had many concerns about it. This issue has huge implications, and changing the Constitution is not a matter which should be taken lightly. I am not saying that is the Minister's attitude, but not enough time has been given to this measure, which is being rushed. No coherent or solid case has been made for this very significant constitutional change, and one must ask why it is being brought forward in such a rushed fashion.

On 17 February the Taoiseach told the Dáil that there were no plans for a constitutional referendum and that he had no plans for constitutional amendments. Less than one month later the Minister announced plans for a citizenship referendum. Since then, Opposition parties, parties in Northern Ireland and the Human Rights Commission have all expressed their concerns about the implications of proceeding with this measure. Despite those concerns and the lack of agreement, the Government is pursuing this in a single-minded fashion, which is something we will regret in the future.

In September 1983 the country went to the polls to pass the so-called pro-life amendment. There is no link between these two measures but there were warnings at that time that the provision could have the opposite effect to its stated intention and that more time should be given to debating it. We should not use the Constitution for political reasons and we should not make changes in the Constitution lightly. At the very minimum there should be all-party agreement on such measures and many months should be given to consideration of the proposals.

Constitutional law is difficult and complex to understand. I am not an expert on law and particularly on constitutional law. In fact, I find it a difficult and complex area to understand, which is one reason time should be given to it. The issues need to be explained with great clarity and questions that arise need to be answered. The questions of ordinary people on the street need to be answered.

Last weekend I was canvassing in my constituency with some local election candidates. When the issue arose it became clear that people did not see this as a citizenship referendum, but thought it was about whether foreign workers should be allowed to work here. The group I met are working in a factory which has many foreign workers. They resent it greatly because they say it is reducing the wage levels. They are not happy about the number of foreign workers in their town and in the factories in which they work. They see this as a referendum on whether we should have foreign workers and will vote accordingly. They may vote in favour of it with a view to preventing foreigners from coming here. That is far removed from what the referendum is about.

The time remaining between now and 11 June is short. While the commission will launch an advertisement campaign, there is no guarantee that it will clarify for people what the referendum is about. This is a referendum about citizenship in which we state who gets to be Irish and who does not. It is a profound and significant event. It is clear the public at large does not know what it is about. I ask the Minister to take that on board because the result could be that when people do not know what they are voting on, they may not vote at all. That is no way to handle the Bunreacht, the fundamental law of the country, the basic principles by which the State operates. It is unsatisfactory to say the least. The people are being asked if they agree with the provisions being proposed by the Government. I am concerned about the implications for the Good Friday Agreement of tinkering around with provisions inserted in 1998 for a particular reason.

I have been looking at the document produced by the Minister's Department on asylum applications. I was astonished when the Minister announced the referendum on the radio a few weeks ago and spoke about the maternity hospitals as if this had suddenly become a major problem. We have known about the problem of late arrivals at our maternity hospitals for years. It is clear from a breakdown of the figures that it is not only Nigerians and Romanians who are turning up late in their pregnancies to have their children here. They are coming from all over the world. Given that there are so many more non-EU nationals working here, such as Filipinos and so on, there will be a larger number of births from non-EU nationals. In his address to the House, the Minister has proved only that Nigerians and Romanians are very fertile people and they are having more babies here than other groups of non-nationals. He said there were 1,515 births to Nigerian mothers in 2003 in the Dublin maternity hospitals, 469 to Romanian mothers, 46 to Polish mothers and 73 to Lithuanian mothers. What that tells me is that Nigerian and Romanian mothers are fertile. They are in their childbearing years and having babies in this country. That is all it proves to me and nothing else. In my opinion, those figures are too low to justify this constitutional amendment. They are too low to justify a change to the fundamental law of our country. They are also lower than they were, I suggest.

The Minister's figures show that the number of applications for asylum is decreasing and this is clearly set out in the Department's document. We must separate in time the pre-Supreme Court judgment era and the post-Supreme Court judgment era, pre and post the L and O judgment because the Department did not accept applications based on the birth of a child after the Supreme Court judgment. If the period after the Supreme Court judgment in January 2003 and after July 2003, when the Department issued its strategy statement, is examined, one will still see a significant drop in the number of applications.

We have very likely passed the high point of asylum applications, due, very clearly, to measures being taken by the Department and legislation passed in this House. I refer to such measures as the elimination of rent supplements, the introduction of sanctions on illegal immigrants, employment permits, carrier's liability, which is a significant measure, changes to the asylum legislation, such as the introduction of the safety of origin concept in September 2003, and ongoing operational strategies regarding illegal immigration. I argue that this provision is not needed. Due to the measures already taken by the Department and these Houses, the number of illegal immigrants and asylum seekers has decreased and, hence, the number of births has decreased. Despite the high birth rate among Nigerian and Romanian women, the case has not been made for this amendment.

I received some literature from Mr. Pat Montague, who is a PR consultant and a friend and acquaintance of mine. He states:

Is there not a certain irony in the fact that a Fianna Fáil-led Government is seeking to amend de Valera's Constitution in order to remove an anomaly and cure an unintended citizenship advantage conferred purely by accident of birth? It was de Valera's US citizenship that saved him from execution in 1916. He was an infant of an Irish woman and a Spanish man and had acquired citizenship automatically solely by reason of his birth in the US. His mother was two years resident in the US when he was born.

If President Wilson's Administration, as it was then, had used the same rules that are being proposed by this Government, there would have been no grounds for the intervention to save a US citizen, Éamon de Valera, from execution in 1916. There would have been no Treaty split, no Civil War and possibly no Fianna Fáil as a result.

From a child's point of view, which we have not been listening to, birth is an accident; children do not ask to be born and they do not ask to be born in Ireland or Nigeria or Romania or Lithuania or Poland or New York for that matter. All that children ask is that we watch over them.

I welcome the Minister to the House and I welcome the opportunity to contribute to this important debate. The referendum on the proposed change to the Constitution deals with one matter only, the notion of citizenship. I hope that by the time this debate has concluded both in this and the other House, we will have re-established the value and definition of citizenship. It means more to me and to most people than just a passport or a legal status. It is inextricably linked with belonging to a community, participating in that community, having a commitment to the society in which one lives and having loyalty to the country, irrespective of one's colour or race. It brings with it privileges, obligations, duties and political rights. It also affords the protection of the State. In our democracy, we balance what we, as individuals, can do for our country in assisting its prosperity and well-being with, as a gentleman once said, what our country can do for us. We should all deeply value this concept.

I consider myself a citizen of Ireland not only because I was born here, but because my parents and their parents before them were also born here and, I hope, made a contribution. We must also recognise the contribution made by people who have come here from every corner of the world. Their presence has enriched our society and educated us in new expressions of culture.

As a nation, we have travelled the world and through this and our communication with other cultures we have, probably more than most other nations, learned to understand many aspects of being a stranger in a strange country. Given our contribution to other countries in which we found ourselves residing, including England, America and Australia, we appreciate the importance of making a contribution. If the referendum is passed, the Government will make a positive distinction between those who place value on participation in society and those who have no connection, whether good, bad or indifferent, with this country, but come here to acquire citizenship, an Irish passport and the associated privileges. That is the nub of its proposal.

It is an incredible distortion of what it means to be Irish to have a constitutional framework which confers citizenship and all the legal and political rights it bestows on persons who have no tangible connection with this country. The Constitution gives such rights to people whose parents came here for no other reason than to give birth and thereby obtain an Irish passport and birth certificate for their child, before perhaps returning to the European Union country of their choice and using what they have gained here for their benefit. By conferring citizenship on the future children of these estranged Irish born citizens, we are creating not one but at least two generations of citizens. It is clear the Constitution is being systematically abused. In such circumstances, the Government is duty bound to identify problems, inform the public about them and allow them an opportunity to do something about it if they so desire.

I denounce the cowardice of the masters of the Dublin maternity hospitals, who, when asked to make a public comment on this issue, ran away from it. As the Minister inferred at the time, they approached him seeking support as regards their resource requirement. I understand they also met the Minister for Health and Children on the same issue around the same time. Despite this, on a morning radio news programme recently, I heard one of them back away from the resource issue to the extent that one would have thought there was no problem. One could be forgiven for believing there was some political motivation in their comment. If they had no concern in the first place, why did they seek a meeting with the Ministers?

We are being told that non-national births are making a significant impact in maternity hospitals across the State, not only the three Dublin maternity hospitals. The high percentage of pregnant asylum seekers aged 16 years and over presenting at these hospitals — the Minister indicated that 58% of female asylum seekers are pregnant on arrival — is having a serious impact on their resources. We cannot ignore this and neither can they as they have a commitment to the hospitals in which they work. If the masters are so concerned, why have we heard so little from them in the last couple of weeks? I understand that they do not want to get involved in the constitutional aspect. Like any of us, their only responsibility is to vote. One would expect, as I have done with the voluntary organisations with whom I worked, to fight like hell for whatever additional finance is available if there is a problem with resources.

A spokesperson for the Rotunda hospital said that 29% of the births in that hospital are to non-nationals. There were 350 in 1998 and Senator O'Meara suggested that this was not a new thing. If there were only 350 in 1998 and 1,951 in 2003 there is something happening. Non-national births in the Coombe amount to 22% of all births there and there is a similar trend in the National Maternity Hospital. Figures do not lie and do appear to be highly disproportionate. People to whom I have spoken and who work in the area are absolutely convinced that it is the uniqueness of the facility that Irish citizenship brings in Europe that is causing this. We are bringing ourselves in line with our European partners, yet we will still have a more liberal position than they have.

I will not debate the issue of timing because the Minister has dealt with that adequately. It makes no sense not to have this on 11 June. There was a 29% turnout at the last local and European elections in Dublin. We need every opportunity and we need to give the voters every encouragement to come out to vote. Something like this will be the catalyst for that, particularly in the area I represent.

Those who have predicted a racist dimension to this referendum should now reflect on the wisdom of their allegations. They should address the proposed changes on their merit. The Government is proposing a new citizenship law which will continue to grant citizenship regardless of race. I give the Minister my full support.

When we are debating a constitutional matter which leads to a referendum, the debate in the House should be on the issue itself. During the course of the Minister's speech, he referred to a Private Members' Bill tabled by Senator Quinn. He should have also referred to a Fine Gael Private Members' motion which called on the Government to ensure that if a referendum went ahead, it would not take place on 11 June. It was a week too late because it was the day the Government made the decision to hold the referendum on 11 June. It was a very mature, calm debate, full of reflection. That debate contrasted greatly with what I heard or tried to hear in the Dáil last week.

"Tried to hear" is the optimal phrase.

Blame could be apportioned on all sides. It was difficult to listen to one side with the other side interrupting. It was no way to conduct a debate.

The other issue that struck me during the debate on the Private Members' motion put down by Fine Gael some weeks ago and supported by the other Opposition parties but, inevitably, opposed by the Government was that while the House had to divide, it was the view of the majority who spoke that the referendum should not take place on 11 June. The Minister put forward a substantial case on the issue but the question he did not answer then and which he has not addressed to any great degree today is why are we having this referendum on 11 June.

Two arguments have been put forward today, one by the Minister and another by Senator O'Meara. Like all political questions, the perfect answer, if it is ever found, lies somewhere in between. There are questions which have not been answered. It is ironic, and also a cause for reflection, that we are having this debate on the "why now" question on the day an independent commission has recommended that the Government's proposal on electronic voting be set aside, although perhaps only temporarily. The Minister will recall that during the debate on that issue, there was not a huge gulf in opinion between both sides of the House. The Government's view of electronic voting was that it was right and that it should be introduced now. The Opposition's view was that electronic voting might be a good thing but that there were still questions which needed to be answered, issues which needed to addressed and that more time was necessary. The Government attempted to rubbish the Opposition's argument, proclaimed to know all the answers and to have all righteousness on its side but, fortunately, an independent body reflected on it, thought differently and reported today. The Minister should take warning from that commission. This issue might be different but, in a sense, it is similar in that while there is a solid basis for the Minister's argument, the grave concern is in respect of the timing of the referendum on 11 June.

Many of us would agree with Senator O'Meara who spoke about the considerable public confusion regarding the issue being put before it. Citizenship is simple in one respect, but complex in another. When the people go to vote on this referendum — I concede a minimal and reasonable set of proposals is being put forward — I would like to think they are voting on the right issue and that they are answering the right question. However, I do not think we are giving the people the time or the opportunity to do so. The Minister has obviously heard all these arguments in the other House and elsewhere but I wish to repeat that the issue is the question of timing. It would have been more helpful if what the Minister is attempting to push through now had proceeded following greater political consultation and consensus. That consensus would have existed because, given the speeches I have heard in this House and in the less than calm atmosphere in the other House, the overall opinion was that a problem may well exist but that quantification of that problem was not satisfactory. Various statistics and figures were thrown about like confetti but there may be an issue to address and if that is the case, that should be done. However, it requires to be addressed in a broader, all-party fashion rather than simply by way of a Government proposal being put to the Oireachtas and published in the middle of April with the people being asked to cast their votes seven weeks later. That is not the way to conduct a referendum campaign.

I have used the electronic voting argument. Let us also reflect on what happened in the Nice treaty referendum. We can fool ourselves into believing the second referendum on the Nice treaty was passed by the people because there was a substantial difference but there was little difference. The people endorsed the Nice treaty in the second referendum as a result of greater public debate and political reflection and consensus. People had the time and space to reflect on a serious issue while moving away from the more extreme irrelevancies which were a feature of the earlier debate. I fear that if we rush to the electronic or paper polls on 11 June, many people will not have had time to give this issue the attention it deserves.

As of today, the two major issues facing Cabinet are this one and electronic voting. I suggest, although not in a cheap party political fashion which would not help in this type of debate, that if we wish to address the issue of citizenship properly and ensure considered reflection and debate, it would solve all the Cabinet's problems if it were to put the referendum to the people next October or December at which time should also occur the first occasion of electronic voting. Despite almost 100% support for the concept of electronic voting in the Houses, the question of timing and methodology arise. If the referendum was to take place later in the year, people would have an extra number of months to debate and reflect on the issue to the degree it requires. Hopefully, by that stage, the outstanding issues with electronic voting will be resolved. As we see from today's report by the commission on electronic voting, those issues are grave.

I plead with the Minister to row back from this rush to the polls and involve all political parties in a greater degree of consultation. Reference has been made to the concerns of the parties to the Good Friday Agreement, particularly those in the North. While the Minister has given answers he, presumably, believes to be full and complete, we have heard from contacts among the Northern political parties that they consider further questions remain unanswered. We await further deliberation from the Human Rights Commission, which represents an independent group of people whose opinions we must take on board.

While the Minister's argument that there is a need for a referendum and legislation has a great deal of validity, why must we vote on 11 June? I ask the Minister to provide all parties with the time and space they need to work with him and to allow the people to make a crucial decision in a mature and meaningful fashion. This should not be decided as a mere annexe to local and European elections.

I wish to share time with Senator Hanafin.

Is that agreed? Agreed.

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for the quality of his introductory address. There are two matters to which I wish to refer which have nothing to do with the Minister primarily. There were newspaper advertisements from both the Referendum Commission and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government today about a referendum on a fixed date. This presumes rather a great deal and constitutes contempt for the House.

I welcome the peroration of the Minister's address. I hope he will not tell me that is not in character as I believe it is. It is extremely important to affirm the openness of this country to those who come to it and the fact that we welcome them. That should not only be because we need them economically, but because of the contribution they can make through diversity and differences of culture. Ireland should be the last country in the world to make it difficult for people to enter.

The Minister mentioned the importance of not endangering common travel arrangements or creating difficulties in our relationships with European colleagues. I, too, am concerned about the dangers of travel to expectant mothers and their children. That practice should not be encouraged. It is for the Minister to make a judgment on the question of proportionality and timing in that regard. I have not yet had an opportunity of studying in detail the views of the Human Rights Commission on the matter. I was a member of the Human Rights Commission, which is made up of fallible human beings. While it made an important contribution to the debate I was not convinced about the concept of non-citizenship.

I would like, in the time available to me, to concentrate on the relationship between this legislation and the British-Irish Agreement. As a resident of Northern Ireland and one who has always prized my entitlement to Irish citizenship and claimed it, I believe the British-Irish Agreement is an important affirmation of the continuing rights of a body of people in Northern Ireland who wish to regard themselves as Irish. I welcome the Minister's explanation of the legislation and accept his contention that it does not in any way dilute the undertakings given in that Agreement.

Article 2 is, I believe, in legal terms a little bit of froth. The formulation in Appendix II of the Treaty is much sounder and more legally recognisable. That it is parallel to the British formulation is important. I am happier for the Minister to cleave to that formulation. What we are dealing with here has had an unintended effect in that something done for good reasons, largely political rather than legal, has backfired. I hope in attempting to correct it, we will not rush to create something which will have another unintended effect.

It is important that the Minister and Government take every opportunity to reaffirm the position and to reassure people in Northern Ireland that their status is not being diminished, their Irishness is not threatened in any way and that any rights that may have been affirmed in the Agreement and subsequently endorsed in the Treaty remain inviolate. The legislation has also had another intended effect in that last night, the DUP, stated that if the Minister can change this part of the Treaty, it is quite entitled to make changes to other parts of it. The Minister needs to clarify that no change is being made. That the Minister is basing his case on the Schedule to the Intergovernmental Agreement is a strong factor. I commend the Minister in that regard. I hope that any publication or discussion on the matter will bear in mind the very legitimate concerns of people in Northern Ireland. In particular, those who have suffered a great deal and those who have given up much to achieve the Agreement should not feel something is being snatched away from them. I do not believe that is the case. I am quite happy with the Minister's explanation today and hope it will be more widely accepted.

I wish to explain why I will be voting for this Bill. As it stands the Constitution contains an anomaly. The generous constitutional allowance, which gives citizenship to a child on birth, has been abused. That is the only reason. There are no complications or variations. I have no wish to take a political stance other than recommending that this generosity not be abused. People have arrived here to have their children and attempted to use the citizenship thus obtained to gain entry to a third country. This clearly shows it was like buying a ticket and needed to be changed. As this provision stands in the Constitution, we must change the Constitution.

The party of which I am a member is generous in spirit and in nature. Racism has no place in Fianna Fáil and has no place in the Government. When we go to the polls, all right minded and thinking people will vote, speak and deal with this issue in a very sound, stable, moderate fashion. Sadly, some may use this referendum for their own ends and try to make people who are here feel unwelcome. This is a reality, which I despise.

We have given more than 30,000 work visas to people who are making the country wealthier and ensuring that some of our industries such as tourism and agriculture, particularly sectors such as mushroom picking, can survive. We owe a debt of gratitude to those people. As is done in the United States, I would like to see people granted citizenship after contributing, which would be just and appropriate, particularly on the eve of ten additional states joining the European Union.

The EEC could have decided in the early 1970s that we were too poor or that we could not be brought up to its standards and refused our entry. However, it had a generosity of spirit and was willing to share. Ultimately, the whole became much greater than the sum of the parts, which will happen again tomorrow. The Government should match this in every possible way by showing how generous in spirit it is and signalling our intention to allow Romania, Bulgaria and Turkey join the Union. Realistically, we cannot look at the Urals and say that Russia forms the border of Europe — it does not. Russia is part of Europe and we must be sufficiently generous to be inclusive in 20, 30 or 40 years' time.

What we have in Europe is something enlightening. As President of the European Union, tomorrow Ireland will have the great honour of welcoming those ten countries. I reiterate that racism has no part in the Government or in any of the mainstream parties. We should be very wary in the referendum to ensure that we denounce those who would introduce any aspect of racism into the debate.

One of the things I have found interesting about the debate outside the House, in the media, is the view taken by two different figures in the pro-life movement. On the one hand, Justin Barrett supports the referendum while, on the other, William Binchy opposes it. I am on the side of William Binchy on this matter. He is a man of humanitarian views who has many things in common with Labour Party policy, with the exception of one issue, and is always consistent in what he has to say. I find Justin Barrett's position totally inconsistent, which is not unusual for him. The issue William Binchy raised is how the constitutional amendment, if adopted, will treat children differently. Children of foreign parents born in Ireland prior to the referendum will have Irish citizenship, but children born after the referendum may not have the same right to citizenship. If their parents are here for a short time, they will not get citizenship and if their parents are here for a long time, they may get citizenship. They may have siblings born prior to the referendum who have Irish citizenship while those born after the referendum may not have Irish citizenship. Under the Constitution, everyone is supposed to be treated equally. However, people will now look at children differently, even though their circumstances are virtually the same, which is very worrying.

The other issue which has not been mentioned, and I am worried about the viewpoint of Justin Barrett in this regard, is the fact that our Constitution protects the unborn. Are we saying that we will protect the unborn, who has rights under our Constitution, but when born, he or she will have a totally different status? This would be an extraordinary outcome.

Reference has been made to statistics and people disagree as to their significance. All Irish emigrants were economic emigrants. My parents were emigrants to the UK in the 1960s. I was born in the UK. My parents returned here but I have always been very proud of the fact that I was born in the UK. I look on it as something that is part of me. I am an Irish citizen and hold an Irish passport. It is something unique to me compared to someone who was not born in the UK but is an Irish citizen. I have both backgrounds to my life. I often wondered whether I would obtain a British passport, which I have not done. I always felt I had that choice. Many immigrants to this country have the same intentions as Irish emigrants who left Ireland, which is to return to their country of origin. Senator Ryan pointed out that many immigrants are of childbearing age. That is what happened to my parents. Most Irish emigrants would have been in the same position. For example, if one was born in America, one would have American citizenship rights. These people contributed to the country to which they emigrated and when they returned they contributed to this country. Irish people who choose to remain in other countries contribute hugely to the reputation of Irish people abroad. They contribute to these countries both economically, politically, culturally and so on. That is how immigrants to this country will contribute if we allow them to do so and adopt a positive immigration system.

I am aware of someone who worked in Microsoft on a work permit. This person had a child while working here. That person subsequently went to the United States and will eventually return to Turkey.

The child was born here and I met him when he was three years old. If he was asked where he was from, he would reply he was from Ireland. His parents will return to Turkey and he will probably spend the rest of his life in Turkey, but he is proud to be Irish in the way that I am proud of the fact that I was born in the UK.

Whatever the intentions behind the referendum, I believe it will lead to very simplified views as to why immigrants come here. This is borne out on radio programmes and in exchanges when one calls to people's doors. People have the idea that immigrants come here to abuse the system, but the reality is that most do not. Many would work but cannot because of the system. I know a Nigerian solicitor who has been here two years but cannot work. He would contribute to the system if he could. He would hope to return to Nigeria and contribute there.

Why can he not work here?

He has not received permission to remain in the State.

He is an asylum seeker.

He was an asylum seeker but that brings me to the next point. I have always felt that our immigration system should be based on a much more positive premise. I believe the reason for the abuses the Minister is trying to address is due to the immigration system and not our Constitution. Our immigration system is negative. The Minister has frequently hinted that he will bring in a green card system, the type of system proposed by the Labour Party which would focus on economic immigration policy. People would be allowed to come here and work and would not have to apply for asylum for the right to stay here. This would get rid of abuses and the Minister has already rid the system of some abuses by dealing with it through legislation.

Who opposed me hook, line and sinker, but the Senator?

No, that is not true. I have been very constructive and proposed an amendment. That is the Labour Party approach to legislation.

Very effective.

I was very glad when the Minister accepted some of the amendments I tabled.

The Senator was very effective.

When the Minister dealt with the issues in legislation, he reduced the number of people who come here to try to abuse the system. That is borne out by the figures. I believe that was the way to go first. The Minister could have referred the matter to the All-Party Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution. I am a member of that committee, which did a great deal of work on the property issue. We managed to reach consensus even though opinion came from across the spectrum, from Sinn Féin, the Green Party, the Labour Party, the PDs and Fianna Fáil; we came up with very good cross-party proposals. The Minister took a similar approach to the immigration legislation and while I accept the Labour Party criticised it, there was a substantial consultation process with all parties and we proposed amendments to the Bill. That has not been the case with this Bill. Perhaps if there had been cross-party consultation on the issue of citizenship, the matter could have been dealt with in legislation. When the all-party committee considered the housing issue, it was decided that a referendum was not required.

I am glad to have the opportunity to contribute to this debate. I very much admire the content and tone of Members' contributions. The ambience created by the debate in this Chamber contrasts with the tone in the other House.

It is slightly different.

We are dealing with the same Minister and the same proposals.

Different people.

It seems that the Senator on the benches opposite thinks his colleagues are superior.

They are of much better quality and style than those in the other House.

I thank the Minister for being present all day in the Chamber. If I may, a Leas-Chathaoirligh, when I finish I will say something about the Order of Business.

I thank the Minister for attending the House all day and for listening closely to the debate, as is obvious from the exchanges that have taken place. Such exchanges, involving more to and fro, should be a feature of the House, rather than the sedate speeches that are read out and in which nobody quite believes. It is admirable that we are having this debate.

Although I have reservations, I will of course be voting with the Government side on the Minister's proposals. Everyone has to put on their badge of honour when they stand up and say "We do believe, Minister, that you are not a racist". So, lest by not saying it, I would be deemed to believe it, I wish to say that I do not believe the Minister is a racist.

An endorsement.

Senator O'Rourke without interruption.

Having dispensed with that laudatory statement I will now go on to more relevant matters. While we are aware of Horace's famous dictum carpe diem or seize the day, I do not like the haste associated with the Bill. The term “seize the day” in this particular instance refers to tidying up because the elections are approaching. Let us hope that a large proportion of people will vote both in the local and European elections. The European elections are being held together with the local elections in an effort to get citizens to vote. Otherwise, the European vote would have been abysmal. Taking the term carpe diem to mean that there will be more people on their way to the polls, there will be a greater turnout for this important measure. I accept that as a reasonably valid point for having the referendum on the same day but I do not accept the haste with which the whole matter has come about, giving rise to the clamour we are beginning to hear about the legislative proposals. The greatest clamour has emanated from the masters of the various maternity hospitals. They have appeared on radio and television saying various things, yet they never tally and only serve to confuse. I cannot get a grip on the birth statistics for the various maternity hospitals. The Minister provided percentages in his speech but I cannot grasp whether the actual numbers are huge. To my mind, they do not seem to be vast. Rather like dramatis personae in a play, the masters have moved back and forth, saying different things every time they emerge. That is how it appears to me as a non-medical person.

I am also torn by the fact — and this is the part of me to which the Minister may refer as the wet or pinko part, to quote the Minister for Finance, Deputy McCreevy——

The Senator is dressed for the role.

Yes I am, but let us not get particular about it. I am torn having listened to a Nigerian woman on "Morning Ireland" who said quite plainly that she came here to have her baby. She said she would get good maternity services here and wanted to give her child a good start in life. I asked myself what was wrong with that. She was speaking the truth, as any mother would, about wishing to give her child a good place in life and she figured that Ireland would be that place. The resonance of that interview has remained with me since hearing it.

I wish to pick up a point made by Senator Tuffy. I did not know that she had been born in the United Kingdom or that her parents returned to and settled satisfactorily back in Ireland. People state that the Irish went hither and thither, far and wide, trasna na dtonnta, but they did not always receive a welcome. One remembers the signs saying "No Irish need apply", which were displayed in the lodging rooms of New York, Chicago and other cities. Many early emigrants from Ireland to Australia travelled in prison ships and were treated as felons when they got there. Senator Tuffy is correct on that point but when we use those examples they still involve small numbers of people going to huge countries. Small numbers of Irish people set forth on dangerous waters, literally and metaphorically, and found landfall, happily in many cases, among very big populations. The comparison is valid in philosophical terms but not in numerical terms.

I have wrestled with this quite a bit because history is my topic and our history from 1850 onwards is full of incidents like this. However, my logical side suggests we should look at the numbers of Irish people as a percentage of the population in the country of arrival.

Whether it is true or not, we have a reputation for generosity and for welcoming people with open arms. Are we seeking to diminish that reputation with this measure? No, we are correct to have misgivings and to put those misgivings into legislation, but I wish we had more time. We should have more debate on this here, in the Dáil and on television and radio. Perhaps the Minister feels it is better to bundle these matters together but I wish there had been time for a more logical and comprehensive debate.

People write to the newspapers and say Irish people were made welcome in New York, Chicago and Sydney, but they do not point out the ratio. That issue would come up if there were a series of debates on this in Trinity or UCD. We are not debating something that is going to end; we are on a journey towards multiculturalism, though we have not embraced it yet. Some people are embracing it reluctantly, while others are embracing it with open arms.

Athlone was one of the first towns to get huge numbers of these people and I welcome them to my home. They visit me regularly to discuss matters and I regularly go to see them in the field in which they are housed in 400 mobile homes. They are cheerful and adaptable and there is ne'er a word of discord in Athlone about this, or very little at any rate.

We are on this journey towards multiculturalism and this is a diversion along the way, a short sharp shock on the road. It would have been better if we had had more time to debate this matter in philosophical, numerical, social, educational and cultural terms, which would have been better than the brevity of our present approach. Having said that, the Minister is on the television and radio whenever I watch or listen, telling his tale.

The Senator does not too badly herself.

There are other points of view. I said the other day, "Once a barrister, always a barrister," but I would like the Minister to act as a barrister for me if I were in trouble.

Is that a premonition?

I have a very good barrister.

There are other points of view and it would be generous of all of us, the Minister included, to listen to those other voices, which sometimes have truths to say.

I did say I would be making a statement on the business of the House. The Minister has kindly said he would like anyone who wishes to speak to do so and that means we will be extending the time, though I cannot say as yet until when.

I thank the Leader for agreeing to extend the debate so that Members may contribute.

The Senator did ask this morning.

I will not use the ten minutes and do not wish to repeat what others have said. I welcome Senator White back from her visits to South America.

Three cheers for her——

Her knowledge of the issue of passports and citizenship will be greatly helped in the context of this debate when we get into the nitty gritty detail on Committee Stage.

Beware of Greeks bearing gifts.

Senator White is welcome back. Her colleagues will have great interest in the issue of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State.

I welcome the Minister and thank him for being present for the debate. My basic objection to the Bill is that I would have preferred that this matter would have been looked at by an all-party committee before legislation was considered. That would have been the best approach to maximise consensus on the issue. Too often in the past we have rushed into constitutional referenda and have seen the net effect in the courts some years later. We should be aware that on many occasions when the Supreme Court has given judgment on a variety of issues that come before the courts, it has asked the legislators to legislate. It has asked us to ensure that the law is in place, rather than the Supreme Court producing the law. I am aware of many cases where the justices of the Supreme Court have said that. Our job is to introduce legislation in both Houses of the Oireachtas. The way in which the Minister has approached this issue is not the correct way. It would have been better to have produced the legislation, put it through both Houses and have it tested in the courts.

The Attorney General would not allow me to do that.

While the Attorney General gives advice as the senior law officer to the Taoiseach and the Cabinet, it is a matter for the Cabinet to decide what it wants to do.

I would not have wanted to do it. If he advised me that it was unconstitutional, I would never deliberately tender a Bill that I believed to be unconstitutional to any House of the Oireachtas.

The opposite is the case. There is merit in the legislation going through both Houses and then being tested.

I am not so sure that the absolute guarantees in Article 2 in respect of citizenship to people born on the island of Ireland are as clear-cut as the Minister suggests. There would have been more support for the referendum had it gone through the Supreme Court a second time round in respect of the legislation. Article 2 states:

It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish Nation. That is also the entitlement of all persons otherwise qualified in accordance with the law to be citizens of Ireland....

This absolutist position that the Government has produced that people are automatically entitled to citizenship arising from the fact that they are born in Ireland——

That refers to other persons in accordance with law, not people born in Ireland.

I am as sure as is the Minister that is an absolute right. That is the reason I suggest he should have gone down the route, as others have suggested, of putting the legislation in place and testing it in the courts. That would have been more sensible.

I heard the Minister's interview last week on "Today with Pat Kenny". The Minister said the job of rounding up people in the dead of night and ensuring they are sent out of the country was not nice. I sympathise with him because it is not an easy job to do. Nobody that I know of would take pleasure in such a task. Certainly I would not ascribe to the Minister the notion that he would take pleasure from this type of activity. It is a difficult job but it has to be done. There should be a procedure in place for the people who go through the system and lose out on appeal. It is logical that something has to be done with them.

I appreciate the comments made by the Minister. He said that when he saw the context of the new Article 2 as proposed as a result of the Good Friday Agreement, it stood out from the pages at the time in 1998. At that stage the Minister was not the senior law officer of the land. I find it interesting that within three years he was giving advice to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy O'Donoghue, in respect of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2001, which has limits to citizenship rights in terms of persons born on the island of Ireland. The Minister well knows that there are two specific cases. Diplomats whose children happen to be born in this country are not automatically Irish citizens because it sets that out in section 6(2) of the 2001 Act and those children born on vessels coming into this country equally are not guaranteed automatic rights of citizenship.

They are entitled.

If that was the case and the Minister's advice, if it was noted in 1998, why was the Minister's advice when he was Attorney General to the then Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform in 2001 actually limiting the rights? Why was that advice so clearly given to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform?

I will answer the Senator in my reply. There is a very simple answer.

In an interview with Pat Kenny the Minister said in 1998 he clearly recognised the importance of this, yet he gave a very different advice to the Minister in 2001. I will be delighted to hear the Minister's response.

As Senator O'Rourke said, jumping into this issue with undue haste when it was clear there was no intention on the part of the Government that this would be part and parcel of the proposals to be put on 11 June is bad management. I ask the Government even at this late stage to work on the basis of consensus and to approach it from the perspective of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution.

Like many other speakers in this debate, I have a very positive experience of the issue of immigration. The new people who are coming to our country have much to offer. We have nothing to be frightened of in terms of the numbers who have come because they are very small. Without these workers our health service would crash and many other important jobs would not be done. My dilemma is that when this matter is put in the raw context of a local and European campaign, unfortunate things will be said, not so much in this House but outside the House. It will give succour to those people who have a very ugly view of nationality, citizenship and neo-nationalism. Senator O'Rourke's comments should be considered by the Government, considering the undue haste.

I wish to share my time with Senator Leyden. I welcome the Minister to the House. I do not have the great problems with the Minister's timing of this referendum that others seem to have. I believe the core issue is extremely simple: there is an abuse of our Constitution and our citizenship laws. The people either decide to hand that matter back to the Oireachtas or they decide not to. That is the issue. I cannot see the merit or logic in the argument for having a protracted debate on this issue.

This issue surfaced in 1998 and since then much discussion and debate has taken place. As the issue arose on a constitutional matter, it was inevitable that the Minister would draw the conclusion that it must be put before the people. I cannot understand the reason to be fearful of asking the people for a decision.

To suggest that the referendum be postponed or deferred for further consultation and debate does not make sense. A campaign on a single issue, such as the referendum proposal, would encourage racism to a far greater degree than a multi-issue election campaign. By holding the referendum alongside elections, we will avoid racism, contrary to the assertions of opponents.

One of the problems in all democracies is declining voter turnout.

Is the Senator surprised?

If there was ever a case for holding a referendum alongside other elections, this is it. The issue is simple but important and by holding the referendum alongside local and European elections, we will maximise turnout. After all, increasing participation in the democratic process is the reason the local elections are being held alongside the European elections. A low turnout, following a single issue referendum campaign, would result in a hue and cry from various quarters that the outcome was unrepresentative, irrespective of the result. The fundamental importance of the issue aside, it is for this reason that the argument for holding the referendum with elections is unassailable.

A further, all be it minor, consideration is that schools would have to close for at least a second day if a separate referendum were to be held. From my professional background and that of my wife, I am aware that some schools would have to close for three days due to particular local circumstances. This consideration also needs to be borne in mind.

The cost factor is important. A separate referendum would generate additional costs. I can see no reason to postpone the referendum now that a decision has been made to hold it on 11 June. Critics have made an issue of the haste with which the Minister announced the referendum. He has acknowledged, however, in every available forum, including both Houses, that he has been deliberating on this issue since taking office and has examined every conceivable means, legislative and otherwise, and consulted the Attorney General and others to determine the best approach to the issue.

Apart from the draft legislation he has proposed, the Minister is doing nothing more than affording the people an opportunity to decide on a problem, which everyone agrees we have. In holding a referendum, he is giving the public an opportunity to return to the Oireachtas the power to legislate on citizenship. The issue is simple and clear and debate ad nauseam or submitting the issue to special committees would not bring greater clarity.

Since last September, I have canvassed on doorsteps up to four times a week and can categorically assure the Minister that the only consensus on this issue is that we have a problem that needs to be addressed. I am frequently asked why we are not doing something about it. These questions do not emanate from racists. Incidentally, I too wish to put down a marker by stating that I have never believed the Minister to be racist.

We all agree on that.

I am glad he has a combative style and it is particularly welcome on an issue of such fundamental importance. Surely every country has a duty to address problems related to the welfare of society. This is one such problem and the Minister has a statutory and constitutional duty to solve it. There is no point arguing that a court decision in England or elsewhere would give one greater insights. We have a problem and the Minister has a duty to act on it. Any delay or tardiness on his part would not be appreciated by the public at large. I welcome what the Minister is trying to do and I fully support him.

I commend the Minister for remaining in the House as it shows a commitment to his views. I expressed a concern some time ago that, with voting taking place on 11 June in European, local and town elections, a fourth unit on the voting panel would be confusing. That is no longer a problem because the election will be paper based. The independent commission has decided that electronic voting will not take place on 11 June. It will be used at a later date but we will not sell the machines to Mr. Mugabe. Many of those who were trained in its use are very upset. I was told that they were convinced of its quality and fairness. However, it changed my point about the difficulty with the referendum in that four ballots had to be cast from one machine. There are now four or five booths so a vote can be cast easily.

The Minister has been very convincing on this issue as he is one of the leading senior counsel in the country. We are lucky that he is the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. He has a very good grasp of the issues. I would like to comment on the issue of the acquisition of citizenship through birth. The case made by a doctor from Cork, who sent a message to the Minister for Health and Children, caused me great concern. I read there was a racket to bring pregnant women here to have children who could acquire citizenship. We also have a responsibility to other EU states.

I do not think that the issue is particularly urgent. The child who acquires citizenship can only obtain a passport at 18 years of age.

The child can obtain a passport within weeks.

The child can then come back at the age of 18 and work here. If he or she is married abroad and has a family, that family will have a right to citizenship. It is a very complex issue. The Minister is probably closing the door as fast as he can after the horse has bolted. Some have already acquired those rights.

There are more horses ready to bolt.

Indeed. There might be an influx in the next seven days from the ten accession countries. We have no safeguards whatsoever and we may find ourselves in trouble because we did not take any precautions. There is a safety mechanism to be put in place. If the jobs are here, we welcome people to fill them.

Must they then get out?

We cannot provide 10,000 people with social welfare benefits just because they are European citizens. We will give them all a céad míle fáilte tomorrow.

A welcome for the day and then they must head off.

I would like to comment on the issue of passports for investment.

The Senator must conclude.

Passports for investment were not the worst thing in the world in the 1980s.

No, they were not. They were for investment. It has changed now because interest rates at the time were about 20% while the interest rate they gave was 3%. A factory in Longford saved 120 jobs because of the scheme that was in operation. I wish the Minister well. He has made very good arguments and has been very persuasive. As a juror, I would side with the Minister.

I am interested to hear the Minister's aside about horses being ready to bolt. Some of the comments made today and in the other House seek to convey the impression that somehow or other, there is a tidal wave of immigration or of people looking to exploit our law and our Constitution to gain Irish citizenship for children who will, at some point in the future, exploit it and perhaps come to work here or something awful like that. No matter what else we can say based on the facts that have been put into the public arena, the one thing we know for sure is that this is a fairly limited problem. The one point of which we are pretty sure is that we are talking about hundreds, or at most, the low thousands per annum in terms of children born here who go away and who may come back.

What does not seem to have struck people is that there are many other loopholes in the system which have given rise to what, on the face of it, should be much greater problems. I have had the opportunity to visit South Africa. I was there ten years ago this week for the election and I have been back a couple of times since. I have met dozens of people who have Irish passports, who have never been here and who have no intention of coming here. During the 1980s, before the apartheid regime fell, we issued not only tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of passports to people in that country. We certainly issued tens of thousands of passports in several consecutive years, so if the figure falls short of 100,000, it would only be just short of it. These people were looking for an escape route. I am not saying I necessarily blame them. Perhaps if I had been in that position, I would have done the same. However, if the Minister is so anxious to safeguard the integrity of EU or Irish citizenship, there are many other areas at which he should be looking. That provokes the inevitable question as to why he is looking at this problem or loophole.

The Minister and his party leader, the Tánaiste, made much of taunting members of my party in the other House, in particular. They wanted to know if we had a difficulty on the issue of substance. They said we were all obsessed with process and asked for our view on the issue of substance. It is fair to say we took our time. We took a week to two weeks to eventually announce a decision and to advocate that the electorate should vote "no". The reason we did so is simple and is no secret. We acknowledge there is a net issue which should be addressed. However, we believe it should be addressed in a different context. We believe there are many other associated issues, to which I will come in a moment if I have time, that should be addressed at the same time and this should be done in a sensitive and sensible way on a cross-party basis. All those things could be done because my basic views on immigration, race, asylum-seeking and so on are shared by most people and by most parties in this and the other House.

The reason we have come down so conclusively on this matter is that it has gone beyond process. I distrust the motive of the Government in putting this forward. I do not accept the bona fides of Government or of the Minister in proposing this amendment. Although I acknowledge, as everyone does, that the Minister is not a racist, the basic tenet or purpose of this amendment is to give succour to those who are or to those who will seek to stir up racist feelings in our society. Racism is not an easy issue or something one is born with. It is not something in one's head in that some people are racist and others are not. We are all capable of racist gestures and thoughts at certain times and of reacting in a racist way to events. I do my best; I do not think I am racist but I am perfectly capable of a racist thought. It is something that is learned. With experience we try to ensure we react to other people who are different from us, whether culturally or otherwise, in a welcoming way and in a way that accepts and values difference.

It is a steep learning curve for many people and this country is on a steep learning curve. Only five to seven years ago we were totally homogeneous and we have moved rapidly, more rapidly than one would choose if one could plan it, to a situation where we are intercultural or multicultural. We need a managed immigration policy and a sensible way to deal efficiently and fairly with asylum seekers and refugees. We need a broad consensus on the way we should do that, but we do not have that yet.

I genuinely believe that by taking out this one relatively narrow net issue and by looking to press certain buttons, we are seriously endangering our capacity to deal in a sensible and sensitive way with the broad issue. Some of those in Government who are proposing this, and I do not know whether the Minister is among them, wish to communicate to people who are concerned about whether black people are receiving benefits before they are, that there will be fewer black people around when this amendment is made. While there will not be, as the Minister knows, that message is being sent out. We are giving succour to those who want to hear it. We are seeking also to make common cause, deliberately or consciously or otherwise, to those who use or would use race for political aims. To use a legal term, we are being "reckless" as to whether they use race for political aims.

That is not something we should seek to do nor is it something parties in this House have traditionally done in the past. I remember many occasions on which the Taoiseach rose in the Dáil to seek cross-party agreement to ensure race was not brought into political discourse. It never has been before between the major parties and it should not be now. If we were to take the issue of employment permits, consider a managed migration policy and examine the issue of citizenship over a period of a year, I am certain we could have reached agreement on what approach to adopt. I am sure the Minister knows that. It begs the question of why he has chosen to proceed in this manner. I can only conclude that the Minister has adopted this course shamelessly and recklessly for party political gain. I deplore that.

While there may or may not be a problem, I am convinced it is not so great as to demand the current response. I am not a constitutional lawyer and I do not know if it could have been dealt with otherwise and by way of legislation. It may have been that the Supreme Court could have resolved the so-called problem. Certainly, it should have been given a chance. I am sure this amendment will do nothing to resolve the problem. While it may free up 5% of places at maternity hospitals, at what cost will that be achieved in terms of relationships in this country? Some people are seeking to make Ireland a cold place for people of different colour. I do not want to be part of that. Whatever merit there may be in the particular amendment which will be proposed to the people on 11 June, I do not want to be asked to press a button and send the message that this is anything other than a welcoming place for people of different colour.

Sadly, consciously or otherwise, the Minister has adopted an approach which tarnishes his reputation and the reputations of all those associated with proposing this amendment in these circumstances. I oppose this measure and I hope as many people as possible will do likewise on 11 June.

Senator Morrissey appears to be the last Member offering. Therefore, the debate will end at 4.20 p.m. to permit the Minister to respond.

I will not detain the House for too long. The Minister has sat here listening to the debate for many hours, which is something not many Ministers do. I congratulate him on sitting here all day and listening to everybody's contribution. It is a Friday and not many other Ministers have done that in my experience. The Minister has put himself at the disposal of the media in answering all the questions that have arisen in respect of this issue.

For the very reasons outlined by Senator McDowell, I take the opposite view that the referendum should be held on 11 June. If we were to have a referendum on this issue alone or the wider issue of immigration it would have the effect of polarising the people and give rise to the racist tendencies of which the Senator accused the Minister. I am fortunate to have non-nationals working in my company. We are fortunate that they are working in industry and that they have contributed to the general economy of the country. I am aware that if people are to have confidence in any immigration or asylum policy, the process must have integrity. After a month's debate, Senator McDowell says he does not know whether there is a problem. While he is not sure, I can tell him that this is about closing a legal loophole in terms of who is granted citizenship of this country. We are entitled to protect our borders from women travelling here to give birth to their children merely to obtain citizenship of Ireland or the greater EU. We must make the decision regarding to whom we grant citizenship.

What surprises me is that when all is done and dusted on 11 June, Ireland will remain one of the most liberal countries in the expanded European Union. Yet, we on this side of the House have to listen to remarks and undertones from the Opposition that this is racist legislation, that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is racist. The Minister attended this House for a Private Members' motion approximately three weeks ago and has attended the House for several hours today.

It is too late.

This is not about numbers, it is about integrity. Perhaps the Labour Party is not aware of the legal loophole which exists. However, the Government is aware of it and is attempting to close it. It is the function and responsibility of Government to do so. A master of one of the maternity hospitals stated that women have arrived in Ireland in advanced stages of labour and that luckily there have been no fatalities. I wonder what the Opposition would have to say if there had been fatalities. What would it have to say about a Government that allowed that to happen by not closing the legal loophole?

We must ensure, during the wider debate on immigration and asylum, that the system has integrity if it is to gain public confidence. That is what we are doing today. This legislation will dispel a myth; it is not about ridding this country of black people as some would have us believe. It relates to the closing of a legal loophole in terms of citizenship. Our policy, following acceptance of the amendment on 11 June, will remain the most liberal in the expanded European Union. I commend the Bill to the House.

That is a mysterious statement.

I will try to deal with the issues raised without going into all of them in detail. This has been a lengthy and substantive debate. If I were to attempt to reply to everything to the extent I would like, we would be here until late this evening and I do not wish to do that.

Since taking up office as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform I have been intent on pursuing policies on immigration and minorities in Ireland based on equality and respect. Such policies must also be sustainable and must command the support of the majority of Irish people. That has been my aim. It has required me to take steps such as mentioned earlier by Senator Brian Hayes in terms of invigorating the deportation process. If I did not do so simply because it is too much hassle in terms of negative media attention and so on, I would be playing into the hands of extremists who would exploit that fact to inflame Irish opinion.

As I said on the radio programme to which Senator Hayes referred, it gives me no pleasure whatsoever that people's dreams are broken, that they are rounded up at night to board aeroplanes to various parts of the world. It gives me no pleasure to do so especially in the context of young families. However, it is one of the duties of my job. Others have the luxury of not having to make such decisions. It is my duty to do so and I will do it.

The Members of this House should have regard to the "blacks" of the debate in this House rather than the text that was circulated, as there are significant differences between them.

I always operate on that basis.

I emphasised that as far as I am concerned this is a process about the integrity of our citizenship law. This is a Bill designed to put one simple question to the people. It is not a complicated question. It is a question of whether the people want to restore to the Houses of the Oireachtas the capacity to deal with the circumstances in which children born to non-nationals become citizens or accept nothing can be done on this issue and there is no need to think of legislating, as it is now a principle graven in stone that no qualification on that right can be put in place. This is what the referendum is about.

Three arguments have been made against the proposed amendment. Some have argued with its timing. While it has not been echoed in this House, the Green Party and Sinn Féin argued it is wrong in principle to change the Constitution because the absolute right must remain. While I disagree with that position, I understand it.

The third proposition is to approach this issue in another way, in particular by legislation. Having been Attorney General and now being a Minister, I know I cannot introduce legislation into either House of the Oireachtas which I believe to be unconstitutional. I cannot say that I believe it to be unconstitutional, but will have a go anyway. If it ever became the practice that a Government did that in the hope that the President would take a different view and refer the legislation to the Supreme Court, it would mean that the Government would have a licence to introduce legislation it believed subverted the Constitution and was effectively hoping that the President, as the constitutional goalkeeper, would save the penalties from going into the net. That is not a proper way to approach this matter. I must approach this on the basis that every other Minister has done, including during the time when I was Attorney General.

When the Attorney General advises that a proposal is contrary to the Constitution, it should not proceed. As Senator Brian Hayes hinted, the Government can ignore the advice of the Attorney General on the basis that it believes that advice is wrong. However, in those circumstances the Attorney General would be in a very difficult personal situation and it would nearly be a resigning issue. If the Attorney General says it is his solemn belief that a proposal is unconstitutional and the Government says it does not care and intends proceeding, at some stage the Attorney General must ask why he is sitting at the Cabinet table giving advice.

I was not free to experiment and come up with legislation which I was advised and believed to be unconstitutional, and go through a test bench proposal hoping the President would refer it to the Supreme Court. That was never an option to me. However, questions have arisen because of an article written by Colm MacEochaidh, a colleague of mine in the Law Library, zeroing in on section 6 of the Citizenship and Nationality Act 1956, as amended in 2001.

It was suggested that the contents of section 6(4) indicated that the Government, to which I was Attorney General, had limited the entitlement to citizenship. However, the reasoning behind the argument is wrong, because what is in Article 2 of the Constitution is an absolute entitlement to nationality and citizenship. Entitlement is not the same as automatic conferring of that status. All of us are entitled to express our views under the freedom of speech guarantee under the Constitution. It does not mean all of us express a view on occasion. It is a freedom to claim citizenship.

On the advice of the Attorney General, Article 2 of the Constitution confers an absolute right to claim Irish citizenship on any person who wishes to do so and was born on the island of Ireland. When it came to the citizenship and nationality provisions that were enacted in 2001, it was provided that although it was effectively the absolute entitlement of people to claim Irish citizenship if they had been born on the island of Ireland, they would not be deemed in Irish law to be Irish citizens in certain circumstances unless they exercised that right or had it exercised on their behalf. There is nothing inconsistent about that. We would not impose on, say, Unionists in Northern Ireland, children of diplomats, or people who accidentally happened to be passing through Irish territorial waters on a ship or whatever, the obligations of fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State unless they were in a position to say that is what they want.

Section 6(1) states that subject to section 6(A), which is not relevant for this purpose, every person born in the island of Ireland is entitled to be an Irish citizen. In other words, they have a right to claim Irish citizenship. Subsection (2) states that subject to subsections (4) and (5) a person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she does anything which only Irish citizens are entitled to do, in other words, if they claim a passport or whatever or, if not of full age, has it done on his or her behalf. In other words, if one's parent chooses on one's behalf to get one a passport at the age of six weeks, one year or one and a half years, if one is born in the island of Ireland one is an Irish citizen under Irish law. It is not a matter of choice or entitlement — Irish law regards one as that.

Subsection (3) provides that a person born in the island of Ireland is an Irish citizen from birth if he or she is not entitled to citizenship of any other state, which is the rule against statelessness. No child will be left without nationality under our law. Subsection (4) states that a person born in the island of Ireland to a non-national whose parent is a diplomat, or to a non-national on a ship or aircraft, shall not be an Irish citizen unless in the prescribed manner that person declares, or if not of full age, has declared on his or her behalf, that he or she is an Irish citizen.

Is that unconstitutional?

No. This point was carefully considered at the time. Article 2 does not impose on the Protestant Unionist community of Northern Ireland citizenship of the Irish State. It gives them the birthright and entitlement to claim it if they so wish. It does not make anyone automatically a citizen but it does say that anyone born is the island of Ireland has an absolute entitlement to claim that citizenship. Therefore, what is in the section is not inconsistent with that. It is totally consistent with that state of affairs.

What is it for?

It was designed to comply with our obligations under the Vienna conventions and so on that we would not impose on the children of diplomats something they did not want.

It is not imposed on them.

That is the point.

It is not imposed on Northern Unionists without special exception.

That is the point I am making.

Why write in two exceptions when there is a general exception?

We cannot have a question and answer session.

That is the distinction with which there is no problem.

The Minister is implying——

I ruled that there cannot be a question and answer session. The Minister to continue without interruption.

It has been argued that this measure is inconsistent. It is not inconsistent because there is an entitlement which is not automatic citizenship. The blackest of black Unionists, so to speak, in Northern Ireland is entitled to claim citizenship of this State as of right if he or she was born in the island of Ireland, but we as a State do not impose the obligation of fidelity to the nation or loyalty to our State on someone unwillingly. That is the point I am making.

Article 2——

Article 2 makes that very clear. Senator Hayes and Mr. MacEochaigh's article missed this point. Article 2 confers on anyone born in the island of Ireland, regardless of their connection with this country in reality, an absolute entitlement to Irish citizenship, which is the issue we are dealing with. It refers to people who have an absolute entitlement, regardless of how tenuous their link with our State.

We are not changing the law ipso facto by the passage of this referendum. We are revesting in these Houses the right to determine the circumstances in which people born in the island of Ireland to non-national parents will become entitled to Irish citizenship. It existed until 1999 and we are putting it back where it belongs.

There may be a variety of views as to whether the three year proposal of the Government is right or wrong, generous or mean-minded, or whatever adjective one wishes to use. There may be people who think it should be six months and others six years, but that is not what the people will be deciding. They will be deciding merely that their elected politicians, after due reflection, will come to a decision on these matters. They have a guarantee that whatever their elected politicians do it will be in conformity with international law, the Good Friday Agreement and the British-Irish Agreement.

Senator Maurice Hayes for his part urged on me the importance of emphasising that the British-Irish Agreement and the Good Friday Agreement are not violated, which is the case, by revesting in the Oireachtas this power to make that decision. It was never part of the architecture of that Agreement as regards the negotiations which happened in Castle Buildings that everybody sat around a table and said that if Mrs. Chen comes from Cardiff to Belfast in future, she will be able to resist expulsion from the United Kingdom on the basis of legal advice that she had a child in Belfast to avail of Irish citizenship. That was never contemplated at the time.

A question also arose regarding numbers. I will not read out the maternity hospital statistics, save to say that in 2003 the highest number of non-national births was among the Nigerian community. I accept that could result from cultural reasons. In the three Dublin maternity hospitals, 1,515 out of a total of 22,895 births, or between 7% to 10%, were to Nigerian women. I reiterate that there is not a correlation between the number of work permits held by minority nationalities and the birth pattern. In those circumstances, although we must accept that many such as Nigerian doctors and Filipino nurses come to work here, an abundance of evidence exists to suggest there is no direct correlation between the number of legitimate economic migrants and the number of births. The implication, and I say this without rancour, is that as the Nigerian lady so honestly admitted, it was a significant draw in her mind that she was doing the best for her child. We should not be so politically correct or self-censoring to avoid saying what is blindingly obvious, that something of huge value can be conferred on children of immigrants in Europe by coming to Ireland to get citizenship. That is not a great mystery or a truth that dare not speak its name, but a plain, simple fact. We have to deal with the reality.

Thousands of white South Africans——

Jus sanguinis, citizenship by descent, as applied in South Africa and other places, was mentioned. It does not apply only in South Africa and I always notice that the harbingers of the left zero in on white South Africans as a group of people they worry about in this context. It applies in America too. It applies to Irish people in New England, Texas and California who feel a strong bond with this country. I cannot draw up a law to satisfy Senator Ryan that would say to a child or a grandchild of an Irish citizen in Vermont that he or she may come back to Ireland because he or she has red hair and does Irish dancing, but not to extend that to somebody in South Africa who has never heard of the place or been back for donkeys years and whose only motive is to have a bolt hole from a perceived political threat to the way of life. I cannot have a law which says we will accept one particular case because it involves pure love of Ireland, but that in another case it is fear of the unknown. It would be unreasonable of me to have a citizenship of descent law which stated that whenever there was a crisis in the world, we would lift up the drawbridge and no Irish citizenship would be available.

It is open to this House to change the law on citizenship by descent. The House can state that grandchildren are out from now on, and that citizenship will apply only to the first generation. That is perfectly permissible under the Constitution. We could do that tomorrow if we thought collectively that it was fair. Curiously, however, we can do nothing about Mrs. Chen because her position is written into the Constitution. I am merely asking that all these decisions should be put on the same level whereby if there was abuse or if this House thought in its wisdom that the grandchildren of expatriates should no longer be entitled to citizenship, it could act accordingly. Just as that is the case now, it could also be the case as regards any perception that there is an abuse of the jus soli principle arising from Article 2 of the Good Friday Agreement. I will say no more or less than that.

In what was possibly the most passionate speech of this debate, Senator Derek McDowell, having looked carefully at what the Government is doing, concluded that this referendum proposal was being moved forward in bad faith. He suggested the reason for it was to gain electoral advantage and embarrass those who are opposed to it, thereby muddying the waters in the election process so as to grant some perceived party political advantage to those supporting the referendum. That is not true, however.

I heard the Leader of the Labour Party propounding a complex theory about how I was the glove-puppet of Fianna Fáil electoral researchers who had come up with some private research, which was why I was bringing forward this referendum now. That is wholly untrue. I was so stunned to hear it that I made enquiries and I believe there is absolutely no foundation to the existence of such research, let alone to my having ever been motivated by it.

It is one of the secrets of Fatima at this stage.

It does not exist. It is a myth. It is easy to say that there is a secret file somewhere and, since it is secret, one cannot disprove its existence, but it is not true.

From the moment I became Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, I had to grapple with a situation which at that time involved in the order of 10,000 to 12,000 asylum seekers coming into the country annually. That was causing problems for the State. When people are motivated by a desire to be politically correct and avoid giving any hostages to fortune to those of extreme views, they tend sometimes to avert their eyes from what is actually happening.

This year, I will spend €120 million from my departmental budget on the phenomenon of asylum seeking. In 2003, total State expenditure was approximately €340 million on processing asylum seekers. I introduced legislation to control what I considered to be the more extreme abuses of the asylum seeking system. I make no bones about this; I did it with a view to reducing the flow of asylum seekers because, on investigation, nine out of ten cases — which are either heard to completion or which are not abandoned when people disappear from the system having made a claim to get their toe in the door — are found not to be entitled to refugee status. Those huge sums of money are currently being channelled into this particular area. On behalf of the Irish people, I have to make fair-minded decisions about that. I make no apology to anyone for that. I have to do it.

Of the 640 civil servants on the immigration side in my Department, over 420 deal with asylum seeking, as was said earlier. This causes me grief as well because I want to run a more efficient immigration service where the telephone is answered more than two days a week for two hours, as we were told during this debate, where people get their decisions on immigration quicker and more comprehensively, and where more time is available to decide whether a group of people coming in from Bangladesh were or were not a bona fide theatre travel company. I would love to have resources available for those purposes, but we live in a real world of limited resources.

When one is spending €340 million from the Exchequer on asylum seekers and two thirds of one's complement of civil servants in the area are devoted to this phenomenon, one has to ask oneself at some point: "What can I do to prevent abuses?" I brought forward carrier liability legislation and legislation forcing asylum seekers to engage in the process more comprehensively. I did that and I was criticised roundly for doing so. Members in the Chamber will remember the debate, where I took a fair amount of stick for this fortress Ireland concept that I had.

The Minister is well able.

There was a fair amount of stick but as a consequence of the steps we have taken, the numbers seeking asylum in Ireland have gone down from 12,000 to less than 5,000. I have taken effective action to curb significant abuses. Our system remains the same. People are entitled to protection but I have done something about it.

However, when I was made Minister in 2002, I was faced with a situation in the autumn of that year where I had a pending appeal to the Supreme Court against a decision in my favour in the High Court in the L and O case. When the masters of the various hospitals approached me saying they had a big problem in this area, I explained that I had a forthcoming decision in the Supreme Court which might go in my favour and solve the entire problem, or almost entirely. I also said I was generating legislative proposals on carrier liability, so the problem might not be all that big.

However, by summer 2003, the record in the Oireachtas Library shows they were back again, saying that although the number of asylum seekers had gone down to one third of non-national births, they were still faced with a very serious problem and they used the phrase that if it was not addressed, we would need to build a fourth maternity hospital in Dublin. They also said that a medical catastrophe was waiting to happen and Dr. Geary, one of the masters, very honourably said in a recent radio interview that life and death situations were arising in this context.

Regardless of whether my use of the word "plead" — that they pleaded for something to be done — was apt, I note that Senator Brian Hayes said he would plead with me today to defer the referendum. I note that he used the term, but if I said he was pleading he might think that was over the top. However, a very strong case was made to me that I had to change the law to tighten up on immigration.

The Minister reported that.

That is the situation. Whether someone wants to say it is a very strong case or pleading, I will accept any language which is used. A strong, forceful case was made to me that the responsibility was mine.

The programme for Government envisaged that there could be constitutional change and at that stage in 2003 I said to myself that I had better start assembling the case for constitutional change. Coming up to Christmas 2003 I was working in my Department on creating a proposal for a referendum. My reason for doing so was that I knew it would be sensitive and that we would be heading into the turbulent waters that now exist. I knew all of the difficulties that I now face involving a small but vocal body of opinion——

Why did the Taoiseach deny it?

The Taoiseach never lied.

I said he denied it.

He did not deny it.

(Interruptions).

The Taoiseach said the Government had no proposal for such a referendum. That was true because at that stage the case was not made out and was not decided at Cabinet. The day I came before the House for the Fine Gael and others Private Members' motion on the timing of the referendum was the day on which the Cabinet finally made its mind up on that issue as well, not before.

The reason I make all those points is that I would have taken a legislative route if it were open to me. I would have relied on L and O if it would have solved the case. I would have relied on carrier liability and so on if that would have solved the case. I would have been content to take a proportionate view, based on proportionate outcomes to the steps taken, but I am finally driven to the conclusion that the number of births to non-nationals in Dublin hospitals will continue at a high level until such time as a significant proportion, which I estimate to be between 40% and 50%, of the draw factor of Irish citizenship is taken away.

I was criticised also for coming up with the figures of 40% or 50%. I shall tell the House where I got those figures. The honest decent Nigerian woman to whom the Leader referred said on the radio that was the impelling factor in her case. Almost immediately after, one of the most anti-racist and most decent medical practitioner in the country, the Master of the Coombe Hospital, was asked about her case. The RTE interviewer asked that master, "What percentage of births do you think her scenario would fit into?" He said about 40%. That is what he said, not what I said. He is dealing with these patients.

I cannot prove things mathematically. I can only show the overall trends. I cannot make Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform officials sit beside beds in labour wards asking people for their motivation, how long they have been in Ireland and so on. I cannot do all of those things.

The Minister claims to know it.

I do not claim to know it. I claim to have common sense and to draw some inferences from a pattern.

The Minister does not have a monopoly of common sense.

I cannot put my hand on my heart and say in respect of any individual that she was drawn to Ireland by the prospect of citizenship for her son unless I conduct a long-term interview with that person. That is not practicable. All the objective people who have looked at this matter, all those involved in the maternity hospitals and all the expert advisers in my Department examining migration patterns say it is a significant attraction coming to Ireland that citizenship will inure to their children if they come to Ireland, either as an asylum seeker or as sombody coming to our maternity hospitals at a late stage. I believe them.

The other side of the coin is that I am faced with scepticism, people saying they do not believe it and asking for proof. None of those people has gone to any maternity hospital and produced a matron, a nurse or anybody else. Neither has any of them gone to the Garda National Immigration Bureau, any immigration official or anybody in the area and produced one objective person who would say citizenship is not a significant draw in migration patterns into Ireland.

They would not be misrepresented.

Not one of them would assert the negative but they will cast doubts about my assertion of the positive. That is as it may be.

I wish to make one last point before I trespass too much on the patience of the House. There are two poles of extreme in all of this, the right wing, conservative, reactionary view that a homogeneous Irish society with pale skins, similar accents and so on is the desirable state of affairs——

Like the Minister.

——and that everything has been falling apart since that ceased to be. The other view, and it is equally unpleasant and equally unsustainable, is that it does not matter who comes into Ireland, we should not have any controls, that deportation of itself is racist, and that heterogeneity, as opposed to homogeneity, is an end in itself. I suggest that is equally untenable as a proposition. The great majority of Irish people are to be found in the middle on this issue, in a liberal view, between the ideology of the extreme right and internationalist ideology of the extreme left. The great majority of Irish people are, to use Senator Hanafin's very eloquent phrase, generous-spirited and open hearted to migrants coming to this country and welcome them into our community. The great majority of Irish people have a sensible common-sense approach to all these matters. The great majority of Irish people, even in these Houses, concede I have a problem.

There is a Saint Augustine-like wish to say——

Be good but not just yet.

——not just yet. I believe that a single-issue referendum would be more divisive than putting this to the people on a day where there are other issues to be decided. I believe that positively as a proposition. Second, I believe it is a good idea to get a representative view of the Irish people, not just the conservative reactionaries on the one hand and the internationalist leftists on the other who would beat each other by 15% to 14% on an unrepresentative poll, as has happened before in Ireland. It is a good idea to get everybody out and to ask the people on the day when they are going to the polling station to express their view. That is the essence of democracy.

I do not believe I could ever engineer a very significant turnout in a single referendum. If I did try to put massive political effort, rhetoric and passion to drive people out to vote "Yes" on some Thursday next October, I would be accused of being obsessed with this issue, of driving this process from an absolute desire to get a "Yes" vote and herding people out of their houses to go down to the polling station——

Will the Minister not campaign?

——when they really want to sit at home and watch "Coronation Street" or whatever else. That is what would happen to me. I would have an unrepresentative turn out of Irish people in such a poll.

Except to vote electronically.

I now say it is sensible to have it on a day when people are going to the polls in any event.

This was signalled at the beginning of the life of the Government, as part of An Agreed Programme for Government, as something that would be faced up to and if necessary a constitutional solution sought. We are constantly reminded by our Opposition critics that we are two years into the life of this Government. On what other occasion, prior to the next general election, whenever that may be, would there be a broad representative turn out of the Irish people going to the polling stations?

That is true.

The European Constitution.

The Presidential election.

There may be an IGC treaty or there may not; we do not know about these things. In An Agreed Programme for Government I have an undertaking to face up to this issue, if necessary on a constitutional basis. I ask this House in all reasonableness, what other day in the life of the Government, given that we are now between 40% and 50% through the life of the Government, could I say before the next general election would be the day on which I would get a representative turn out of the Irish people at a polling station. The answer to that is there is no other day.

This is not a racist proposal; this is not a proposal that in any way damages, invalidates or subverts the settlement in the Belfast Agreement. This is a minimalist proposal to give back to this House and the other House the right to debate exactly and to fine tune the legislative controls over an area which can be and is being abused. It is a matter for this House to trust itself. It is a matter of asking the Irish electorate to trust their politicians. Sometimes that is a difficult request to make because of the coruscating cynicism about elected politicians. I believe it is in the two Houses of the Oireachtas that these decisions should be made and I believe that the Irish people understand very clearly that the decision should be for these two Houses.

I welcome the Fine Gael Party's view that at least if this matter goes to the people, they will support a "Yes" vote because they trust the two Houses of the Oireachtas to do the work of legislating which was their function until 1999 and which, inadvertently for the most part, slipped out of their grasp and on to the constitutional plane in a way that denied me the opportunity to deal with it on a legislative basis.

I thank the House from the bottom of my heart for a constructive debate. I will say no more than that it contrasts with the treatment I received elsewhere. At least I was heard today and was not shouted down at the beginning, middle and end of my speech, as I was in another place. The House has done itself proud and I am glad we have not required a guillotine.

I did not want one.

I commend the Leader for her diplomacy in getting us to the point at which we can put the matter to the House. The Bill deserves a solid "Yes" vote.

Tairgeadh an cheist: "Go bhfanfaidh na focail a thairgtear a scriosadh."

Question put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the main question."
Rinne an Seanad vótáil ar mhodhleictreonach.
The Seanad divided by electronic means.

Given the importance of this matter, a constitutional referendum, I propose we move directly to a vote through the lobbies.

The electronic voting has failed.

I must inform the House that it is necessary to take this division otherwise than by electronic means. Members should now proceed through the lobbies.

Tairgeadh an cheist arís: "Go bhfanfaidh na focail a thairgtear a scriosadh."

Question again put: "That the words proposed to be deleted stand part of the main question."
Rinne an tSeanad vótáil: Tá, 23; Níl, 17.
The Seanad divided: Tá, 23; Níl, 17.

  • Bohan, Eddie.
  • Brady, Cyprian.
  • Callanan, Peter.
  • Daly, Brendan.
  • Dardis, John.
  • Dooley, Timmy.
  • Feeney, Geraldine.
  • Fitzgerald, Liam.
  • Glynn, Camillus.
  • Hanafin, John.
  • Hayes, Maurice.
  • Kenneally, Brendan.
  • Kett, Tony.
  • Leyden, Terry.
  • Minihan, John.
  • Morrissey, Tom.
  • Moylan, Pat.
  • O’Brien, Francis.
  • O’Rourke, Mary.
  • Phelan, Kieran.
  • Walsh, Jim.
  • White, Mary M.
  • Wilson, Diarmuid.

Níl

  • Bannon, James.
  • Bradford, Paul.
  • Browne, Fergal.
  • Burke, Paddy.
  • Burke, Ulick.
  • Coghlan, Paul.
  • Feighan, Frank.
  • Hayes, Brian.
  • McCarthy, Michael.
  • McDowell, Derek.
  • O’Meara, Kathleen.
  • O’Toole, Joe.
  • Phelan, John.
  • Ross, Shane.
  • Ryan, Brendan.
  • Terry, Sheila.
  • Tuffy, Joanna.
Tellers: Tá, Senators Minihan and Moylan; Níl, Senators U. Burke and Ryan.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis glacadh leis an gceist.
Question declared carried.
Faisnéiseadh go rabhthas tar éis diúltú don leasú.
Amendment declared lost.

Pursuant to Standing Order 104(3), I declare the Bill to be read a Second Time.

Céim an Choiste ordaithe don Chéadaoin, 5 Bealtaine 2004.

Committee Stage ordered for Wednesday, 5 May 2004.

When is it proposed to sit again?

Next Wednesday at 1.15 p.m.

The Seanad adjourned at 5.25 p.m. until1.15 p.m. on Wednesday, 5 May 2004.
Barr
Roinn