Pat Rabbitte (Dublin South West, Labour)

It is eight weeks since the Taoiseach told the Dáil that his Government had no plans to hold a constitutional referendum this year unless one was required on Europe. However, the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform was able to tell the nation a few weeks ago that he had been working on a proposal for this referendum since 2002. The day after the Government's proposals were published, it was still insisting publicly that no date had been set for a referendum despite the fact that in January secret provision was made to accommodate a third issue at the polls on 11 June. I wrote that day to the Taoiseach to say the issues involved in the referendum required a rational debate in a calm environment. I wrote that the Labour Party was prepared to consider the terms of any referendum and accompanying detailed legislative proposals in as non-partisan a manner as possible. I also explained that the acid test for the party would be the Government's willingness to de-couple the referendum matter from the impending elections. A majority wants to see this happen. The Government has, however, decided to proceed in as partisan a way as possible.

Ministers' speeches on the subject have become more and more aggressive and untrue and misleading claims have been made about consultation. The issue is beginning to find its way into election literature in ways which make it clear that the issue of citizenship is to be seen as symbolic of the Government's overall approach to immigration. Ministers are going around the place saying this is a simple and reasonable proposition, a notion repeated this morning by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform — as he acknowledges by nodding his head. In unnecessarily intemperate exchanges with my colleague, Deputy Burton, the Minister said in the House that one could not run a controversial referendum like this during a presidential election. I will be checking the Official Report to confirm that. It is a simple proposition in one context but a controversial referendum in another.

Ministers say that all they wish to do is restore to the Oireachtas the right to legislate in an important area. For seven years, the Government has taken every conceivable step it could to remove all power from the Houses of the Oireachtas and any other organ of public accountability. The very sanitised nature of the proceedings here today and the way in which this Parliament is being obliged to conduct itself in this debate give the lie to the claim by Ministers that they are only interested in returning power to the Oireachtas. I take legislation and the abuse of the law seriously. I am very much aware of a broad public perception that there is a loophole in our law which is being abused. If that is the case, there will and ought to be legitimate public concern. However, it is fundamentally wrong that a succession of Ministers has used a single statistic to exaggerate the size of this loophole in the public mind.

Instead of giving us true facts and figures, the Government relies on the totally misleading mantra that one in four births in Dublin hospitals last year was to a non-national mother. The non-national mothers in question were, among others, American, Dutch, French, German, Filipino, Russian, Nigerian, Canadian, British, New Zealanders, Australian and Japanese. The vast majority were living and working in Ireland in perfectly legal circumstances. While the Government's referendum and the legislation accompanying it will not change that by one iota, I am sure people will not be told that on their doorsteps. In other words, if this referendum is passed, the number of births to non-nationals in Dublin hospitals will remain as near possible to one in four. The difficulties of resources, staffing, accompanying health difficulties and language will continue to exist. What will be the Government's next response?

It is the children of women arriving late in pregnancy, giving birth for the sole reason of claiming citizenship for their child, who are the ostensible targets of this referendum, and not even all such women, because the legislation published by the Minister makes it clear that a child born in Ireland of a British parent will in future have entitlement to Irish citizenship, and offers no basis whatever of proof of parentage. I read in this morning's newspapers in the letter to Deputy O'Keeffe that the total number of non-EU, non-national mothers arriving in late pregnancy at the National Maternity Hospital last year was 163 — approximately three a week. Even if we assume that each one of them was here to try to secure citizenship for their child, is it for this we are being asked to change the Constitution?

If this is the extent of the problem, why has no solution been canvassed other than a change in our fundamental law? Why is it that heavily pregnant women, according to anecdote usually travelling alone and often in distress, are allowed to board aircraft to Ireland without the remotest comment? If trafficking is involved, why is it that there is no attempt to find out from the women who arrive here how the arrangements were made, and how they found out about this so-called loophole? Since 2000, trafficking in illegal immigrants has been punishable by up to ten years in prison and-or an unlimited fine. How many persons have been arrested for or convicted of this offence?

I told my party's weekend conference that Ireland needs, and has needed for some years, an immigration policy. The issue of citizenship is obviously related to the whole issue of immigration, and it makes no sense to tackle one without the other — unless, of course, political propaganda and spin will be employed to convey the impression that the people are really being asked to vote on a "get tough on immigrants" policy. A rational, colour-blind policy that takes account of Ireland's needs, and that is willing to allow and enable people to make a better life here, requires all-party support for its development. Instead we are approaching the issue in a highly-charged, selective and partisan way. We will regret that. It is entirely disingenuous to posit in this House that because two parties have so far declared opposition to the referendum that the matter could not be studied by an all-party committee.

Ireland's history was shaped in many ways by emigration. The coffin ships of the 19th century were replaced by the mail boat in the 20th century. In both eras there were destinations that were willing to make Irish people welcome. Are we now to send a coded signal to the rest of the world that none of their huddled masses is to be made welcome here? I will return to this subject later. I must first address the other area in which this referendum can only do damage.

The referendum on the Good Friday Agreement was the only occasion in the history of our State when all the voters on the island of Ireland had an opportunity to vote on an Agreement that, among other things, resulted in a change to our Constitution. If for no other reason than that — and there are other reasons to which I will refer — we should not readily agree to any unilateral attempt to override that outcome, without even notice to, let alone consultation with, the other parties to that Agreement.

See this speech in context