Niall Ó Donnghaile (Sinn Fein) | Oireachtas source

Apologies for having to step out earlier. I take the opportunity to thank the witnesses. It is good to have people talking about voting rights in this building other than me or Senator Billy Lawless. Bringing more voices to the concert is important and positive.

The witnesses made the argument coherently and passionately as to why the issue is symbolically important but also constitutionally and politically important. Senator Craughwell rightly acknowledged that this is a political issue. I have made the point during a number of debates in the Seanad on this matter that when the Good Friday Agreement afforded us Irish citizenship, it was not partial or conditional. It certainly was not second class. There needs to be a political, societal and civic discussion about what Irish citizenship means for those of us who live in the North but also for emigrant community.

I wanted to raise a couple of issues but I am sure the witnesses have covered them in terms of Senator Craughwell's contribution about who would qualify for voting rights. That was a very useful part of Senator Lawless's recent event in Buswells Hotel where he held a diaspora focused discussion.

I want to ask a brief question on the witnesses' opinion. I appreciate that I am throwing this at them but we were given a briefing, as is the practice, from the Department in advance of the meeting. I do not believe I am breaking confidentiality but under one of the headings of the Good Friday Agreement it states that it is worth nothing that while both the Irish and British Governments confirm through the Good Friday Agreement the right of the people of Northern Ireland to hold both Irish and British citizenship, it is the respective legislation in each jurisdiction that governs entitlement to citizenship. I am not sure what that means in this instance in terms of how it impacts on us because the options paper and the position of the Government, and the position outlined in the Good Friday Agreement, is fairly clear on the rights of citizens.

There is a political consensus in these Houses that we have won the argument on the need for voting rights to be extended to the diaspora and to citizens in the North. However, I share the witnesses' concerns about the mechanics of when that will happen. While appreciating that is not a simple task, I have always made the case that there is an existent register, electoral office, electoral commission, polling stations and so on in the North. I appreciate that when we are dealing with a community overseas it is a much more logistically complex arrangement, but I do not believe it is one that cannot be overcome. I do not accept the need to hold a referendum, although one would be reasonably confident going into that referendum that the make-up in these Houses would reflect society. I would share the witnesses' concern about wanting to have that date and clear statement of intent from the Government. It has been a very worthwhile discussion.