Joe Costello (Dublin Central, Labour)

It is just as well that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, Deputy McDowell, did not hear his predecessor, Deputy O'Donoghue, on the plethora of legislation he introduced on this issue. Considering his paltry track record for legislation as Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, perhaps Deputy McDowell could have a word in the Minister's ear on the 40 Bills still waiting to be dealt with urgently.

I was disappointed that the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform supplied statistical information only to the Fine Gael Party spokesperson, Deputy Jim O'Keeffe, and not to the other party spokespersons. He claims to have supplied it on request. However, at a consultative meeting with the Minister on 7 April, I understood that any available information would be shared with Opposition spokespersons as I had requested. It is also disappointing that an appendix should then appear in the Minister's Second Stage speech and in the media which was not circulated to the other spokespersons. However, it makes no difference as it contains irrelevant information with no breakdown of facts and figures. As the Minister said, it is little more than anecdotal information. When a Minister uses the term "anecdotal" to justify legislation, there is something wrong. However, when he uses it to justify a constitutional amendment, there is something seriously wrong.

The Minister also said the possibility of an all-party agreement is nil and any attempt to seek it is futile. The Minister knows that is not true. When I met him on 7 April I proposed that there should be an all-party Oireachtas committee and that the Labour Party would accept the outcome of the deliberations of that committee so he is simply telling us an untruth here.

If the Minister had established the correct procedure and allowed an all-party committee to be established perhaps we would not have a situation like the Mrs. Chen case to which the Taoiseach alluded in his speech when he talked about claims and appeals as a reason for constitutional change. Surely one awaits the outcome of matters of this nature and if the outcome is negative, that should be fed into the consultation process to become a factor in an argument on why we have to close a loophole. If the case fails there is no loophole. No one in the European Union has brought this to our attention as a loophole caused by our legislation. That there is a case before the European Court of Justice which has not been decided is another reason against jumping into a constitutional amendment now. We do not know what the outcome will be. If the outcome is negative why would we need a constitutional amendment? If it is positive the Government has an argument to bolster its case. Instead it is rushing this on, willy-nilly.

The most disappointing aspect of the Minister's contribution was his bald statement "if you are racist vote "No" in this referendum". It is unworthy of anyone in this House, least of all the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, to brand anyone who might oppose the amendment — that is the effect and there is no sense in Deputy O'Dea shaking his head at it. It brands the opposition to the amendment as racist. The Minister should not have put that into his speech and he should not have put it in upper case as he did. He said that the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution addresses a "fundamental issue". The Tánaiste said recently that everyone agrees there is a serious problem to be addressed. The Taoiseach said in the Dáil on 30 March that our citizenship laws are being "rampantly abused" and again in his contribution today he said "the substance and degree of the abuse of our Constitution requires us now to act to resolve this situation". That is erroneous because no figures have been given. The British and Irish joint declaration on Monday, 19 April stated that the amendment to Article 2 of the Constitution was not in accordance with the intention of the British-Irish Agreement of 1998. As a result the Government has decided to spring the amendment upon us and has done so out of the blue. It is strange that such a "fundamental issue" and the "rampant abuse" could have crept up on us so suddenly that we must reconvene the Dáil a week early and have an emergency debate this week.

This Second Stage debate will be guillotined at 6.30 p.m. tomorrow and debate will be further guillotined on Committee and Report Stages. It will be similarly rushed through the Seanad in order to meet the minimum deadline to enable the vote to take place alongside the local and European elections on 11 June. Is it any wonder that the Opposition parties smell a rat? Is it any wonder that we see the Twenty-seventh Amendment to the Constitution Bill 2004 as a blatant political ploy, a diversionary tactic or smoke screen to distract from the dismal failures of this dismal Government? So badly are the Government parties doing in the recent polls that they are prepared to play the race card, the last throw of the dice for a desperate scoundrel. The coalition's sense of desperation became evident when the Minister for Finance announced decentralisation for civil servants in lieu of a budget last December; when the Minister for Community and Family Affairs announced her u-turn on the widow's benefit; when the Minister for Health and Children travelled to Ennis and Nenagh to distribute money and take the sting out of the anti-Hanly report campaign; and when the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform once again pulled out of the hat 2,000 extra gardaí, the two new prisons and his magnificent causeway to Spike Island, all without Cabinet approval. Even the Minister's predecessor, Deputy "Zero Tolerance" O'Donoghue, would not have risen to that level with all of the promises and pledges that Deputy McDowell read out to us.

See this speech in context