Jim O'Keeffe (Cork South West, Fine Gael)

Why did the Minister take so long to respond to my legitimate queries? They came under three headings — defining the problem, exploring the options and the Government's preferred option. It is necessary to examine those points fully. The Minister either had the answers and should have given them to me straightaway or, if he did not have them, did he come to a decision without having considered all the options? The Government has promoted a constitutional referendum in an extremely narrow timeframe without reference to the all-party committee. On that issue alone, leaving aside the substantive merits of the proposed amendment, there is clear need for consideration, deliberation and analysis.

The Government, however, wants to impose a timeframe which makes that impossible. It has not even offered this House and the people who voted to adopt the nineteenth amendment of the Constitution, the amendment to Article 2, an explanation of the position because it persists in its obstinate refusal to address the magnitude of its proposal. This matter has a bearing on the Constitution and on the international obligations assumed by the State, and the position of the Government gives rise to the most serious concern.

It is not enough to say this proposal does not impact on the Good Friday Agreement, it is more complex and requires greater analysis. The British Government has given the Government some comfort and support on the amendment but the Good Friday Agreement was not just between the Irish and British Governments. In a technical sense, the three pages of the Agreement completed on 10 April 1998 were between the Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and the Government of Ireland, but the 33-page annexe to the Agreement represent the positions reached in the multiparty negotiations. There is, therefore, an interlocking between the positions reached in the multiparty negotiations and the agreement reached by the two Governments but that has been overlooked in the rush to judgment on this referendum. It is correct that the only legal obligations arising are between the two Governments but there are political obligations as a consequence of the multiparty arrangements and those obligations have not been discharged.

At minimum, this proposal should have been discussed with the parties to those multiparty negotiations and that has not happened. Mark Durkan of the SDLP has come out strongly on the issue. On 7 April he was handed a document that was not a consultation or discussion document and that is no way to do business or amend the Constitution. I ask the Minister and his colleagues in Government to have more respect for the Constitution and the complex issues related to Northern Ireland and not to rush to judgment and put this issue before the people on 11 June.

The Minister can say the proposal does not directly impinge on Article 2 of the Constitution. If so, should we not deal with an amendment to Article 2? There is, however, an indirect impact on Article 2 because there is a restriction of the rights included in it, raising the question of what might happen to someone who has rights under Article 2 but does not have rights under the amended Article 9. If someone is part of the Irish nation under Article 2 but does not have citizenship under Article 9, what will that mean? An Irish national will not have Irish citizenship. Will that person be entitled to reside in Ireland?

I raise this as an issue that should be teased out. The Government has not examined it properly. It is on my next list of questions for the Minister when he has replied to my 34 preliminary questions. There are many other issues that need to be resolved and rushing this Bill through the House is no way to do that. Many of us want to see the problem fully examined and the best solution reached. The Government's haste could result in the worst of all worlds — an amendment of the Constitution that will not resolve the problem and that might make it worse.

There is a European dimension to this issue. Under European laws and regulations, citizenship is a matter for the member states. The Government, however, proposes most favoured nation status to the 50 million inhabitants of the United Kingdom, giving exceptional rights to one member state beyond the others. It will open up our citizenship pool to 50 million citizens of the United Kingdom. Are we discriminating against the other 23 member states of the European Union by granting most favoured nation status to the citizens of one other member state? How does that fit in with the principle of equality in the EU context?

Before changing the Constitution, which should always be done with due deliberation, we should examine possible alternatives. These alternatives should fit into the development of an overall immigration policy that looks with a humanitarian aspect at the issues of labour requirements, work permits, rights of residence and citizenship. That backdrop has been ignored.

We should examine the extent of the problem. I am still unsure if there is a problem in our maternity hospitals, with the integrity of our citizenship or the health and welfare of pregnant mothers from abroad and their offspring who are born here — the three reasons the Government has advanced for the proposed amendment. These issues should be explored to see if we can resolve them by legislation. The Minister will shake his head on that.

See this speech in context