Olwyn Enright (Laois-Offaly, Fine Gael)

Annexe 2 is not. The proposed amendment to Article 9, by starting with the phrase "notwithstanding any other provision of this Constitution," effectively means Article 9 takes precedence over Article 2. The Taoiseach has argued it is simply not tenable to argue that anyone wanted to see our citizenship laws being abused in a manner that is now all too frequent. I do not believe anybody has articulated that case and this party has certainly not done so. The Taoiseach, when citing the Chen case, should clearly accept that it is before the court and that no decision has been reached on it as yet.

For some years it has been very clear that this Government has no clear or coherent policy on immigration. This Bill is its one and only solution or policy proposal in this wide-ranging area. It is nearly impossible to obtain clarity on the entitlements of people regarding whether they can stay here or whether they are to be deported, on who can work and on who can stay to study. Some have clearly been abused and exploited as employees and others seem to be working illegally. Others want to work and cannot do so. However, there seems to be no real policy on any of these issues. Again, it is being made up as we go along by reacting to circumstances as the political climate dictates. We are being asked to accept a great deal on good faith.

The Minister states in his proposal document that he is committed to the basic principles of the draft Bill. He may well be, but it deals with only the issue of citizenship, which I accept is as it should be in terms of the referendum. However, the Irish people are at the very least entitled to a real and proper immigration policy from the Government rather than a policy of dealing with the issue of citizenship alone. If the Government does not provide such a policy, it is allowing the scare-mongering, the rumour mill and the anecdotal stories to rule the day and to prejudice the opinions of many people.

I disagree with the Minister on the issue of referring this matter to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. I echo the comments of my party leader Deputy Kenny who stated that this is the best solution for calm and rational debate. We have made rushed amendments to our Constitution before, leading to years of controversy before change was made again. The sixth progress report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution recommended calm and measured debate on contentious issues. From what we have seen so far and from what we have heard this morning, this advice should be heeded.

It is wrong to rush through this referendum on 11 June. The Tánaiste's selective quoting of timescales for other referenda is not relevant. The negotiations surrounding the Good Friday Agreement were given unprecedented coverage in the media, giving people masses of information on the issues involved. In any event, practically all parties were in support of it. The two divorce referendums were very much a matter of personal choice on an issue which had the potential to affect us personally. This issue will not just affect us personally but will affect others as well. We are making a serious decision to amend the Constitution in a very rushed manner, denying children the right of citizenship in the country of their birth. I accept that the rights and responsibilities of citizenship are more complex than just being a matter of birth. I include some of the issues the Minister raised today in that context, but it is these issues we need to discuss rationally.

Rushing ahead with this referendum on 11 June is pointless. The comments on the Presidency do the Government and particularly the potential candidates no service. Do the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, the Taoiseach and the Tánaiste really believe that if they hold this referendum on the date of a presidential election it will be divisive and that holding it on the date of the local and European elections will not? I do not know how many candidates will be running for President — last time out there were five — but I know I will leave it to the people to decide their worth. I do not see a problem for presidential candidates on this issue. They can legitimately refuse to discuss something, the legislation regarding which they may ultimately have to sign into law or refer to the Supreme Court.

When it comes to the actions of thousands of candidates around the country, from all parties and none, I do not know how those opposite can be so naive and ignorant. Are they that far out of touch with reality? Do they not remember the lessons we should have learned from the last general election? I hope the abolition of the dual mandate will remove some of the worst offenders from the electoral process this time out. The comment by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform that "if you are racist vote "no" in this referendum, because there is nothing racist about this proposal." makes absolutely no sense. Despite this, it is a cheap shot that will only fuel bitterness and divisiveness in this debate. The Minister has done nothing to prevent this, he has poured petrol on its potential to ignite and he should be ashamed of it.

See this speech in context