Brendan Howlin (Wexford, Labour)

I am glad to have a brief opportunity to contribute to this debate. There is something surreal and unreal about this debate. It is a debate on a constitutional amendment. It is more important than any normal legislative debate we have because it is something we are recommending to the people to put into our basic law which subsequently cannot be changed without reference to the people yet again. However, we are meeting in special session. This is an unreal day, so to speak. We have not had normal Dáil business, there is no Question Time, Adjournment debate or votes, and not too many Government Deputies are present. We are meeting in special session today and tomorrow for time to be used up in order that the minimum constitutional provision of 30 days can be squeezed in so this referendum can be coupled to another vote in respect of which the Government is vulnerable.

I want to deal with the issue under a number of headings and I want to be as reasonable and balanced as I possibly can. In regard to a constitutional issue, a coherent and compelling case must be made for change, but we have not heard it. There was no attempt in advance of the drafting of this proposal to build a political consensus on this issue. As late a speaker as the second last Government speaker, the Minister for Health and Children, could not disentangle the figures because the first case made by the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform is that somehow our maternity hospitals are being swamped by people using our Constitution and the right of citizenship by coming to this country to have children. However, he could not give the base figures for that. All we got were the global figures in regard to these matters that have been clutched at by every speaker on the Government side, as if they did not include female workers in Intel from America, Filipino nurses who are welcome here, the tens of thousands of workers from across the globe who are welcome here or people from the applicant countries to the European Union. They are all bundled into these figures to give the notion that a quarter of all births in our maternity hospitals fall into this category.

We then have comments such as anecdotal evidence and two hard cases given by the Minister for Health and Children. There is no logical link to suggest that 24% of all births relate to a group of people arriving here heavily pregnant, motivated only to achieve Irish citizenship. There is no compelling argument for that claim. We have not heard it. Let us hear it. If there is such an argument, there is a willingness on this side of the House to address it.

We need only recall the previous experience we had with amendments that were rushed through or ill-thought out, authored by the same Department, the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform, which I had the privilege to shadow for a number of years. The last such legislation with which I dealt was the referendum on judicial conduct. I reread the Minister's contributions on that and all his speeches in that regard. He said with absolute certainty that his proposal was watertight, perfect, finely tuned and right. However, it imploded under the weight of logical argument and the proposal was never put to the people. Nobody has had any sight of it since.

I am wary of the certainty that the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform and the Government present on constitutional amendments. The Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill was debated on Second Stage in the House but was subsequently withdrawn. On 2 May 2001, the Taoiseach informed the House: "I do not like the idea of having a referendum without the agreement of the House. That has not been a practice of the House." I agree with the Taoiseach that it is not the practice of the House, so why is it being done on this occasion? Why is the Taoiseach abandoning his own standard and the precedent he set for the Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill? In every other amendment, there is normally some degree of cross-party discussion. The Twenty-second Amendment of the Constitution Bill was ostensibly withdrawn because of the lack of political consensus. There is no rhyme nor reason to proceed with an amendment without any political consensus. With this Bill, no attempt has been made to build such a consensus. If a case had been made for a resolution of this issue, the parties would have found a mechanism to deal with it. A mechanism for amendments to the Constitution was established by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution when ably chaired by Deputy Brian Lenihan, now Minister of State. Why is the very procedure he set out now to be shredded and abandoned?

The Labour Party leader, Deputy Rabbitte, dealt in detail with the implications of this amendment on the British-Irish Agreement and the disingenuous parsing and separation of it from the multi-party agreement. Both agreements must be construed as a whole as the multi-party agreement is an annexe to the British-Irish Agreement and cannot be disaggregated from it. Such an action is disingenuous and dangerous to the peace process and the maintenance of progress on the path to peace in a difficult time. The new basis for citizenship proposes that children of UK citizens born in Ireland will have an automatic right to citizenship. The Government speaks of closing loopholes, yet what if a non-national giving birth in this country declares that child's father is a UK national? Will DNA tests be done to check the veracity of such a claim? Is there a provision for a research board to test paternity? It is not proper to be frivolous on such a subject but I was told, rather tongue-in-cheek, that this will give a new dimension to the Kilburn High Street notion of giving someone a start. Now, if one can declare that the father of one's child is a UK national, there is an entitlement to Irish citizenship. The grandparent rule will not be changed meaning a different standard for the grandchildren of Irish citizens who can claim Irish citizenship but may never have set foot in the country or have any affinity towards it. Yet those children who were born and live in Ireland will have no such right.

The timing of the referendum is also an issue. If any Member is concerned that the Government would run this referendum on a racist basis, then he or she should read the speech of the Minister for Arts, Sports and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue. He told absolute falsehoods to the House when he claimed that those of us on this side of the House argued for an open door policy. I recall no Member on this side of the House arguing for such a policy. His little litany of invective plays well to the agenda of those who will stir up the basest forms of racism. His was a rant about what this side of the House favoured for immigration policy. An interesting start to the debate that does not augur well for balanced and reasonable argument in the future.

What is the extent of the problem? How should it be addressed? Is there a mechanism, short of requiring a constitutional amendment, that has not yet been explored? If the problem exists, is there a better way to deal with it to avoid unnecessary rancour? I know some of the Government backbenchers are uneasy. Even at this late stage, I ask the Government to disentangle this issue from the local and European elections. If a case can be made that there is an issue, a consensus can be built to address it. I guarantee the good will of this side of the House to address such a real issue in the interests of all current and future Irish citizens.

See this speech in context