Marian Harkin (Sligo-Leitrim, Independent)

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak about the citizenship referendum. I have thought carefully about the issue and tried to inform myself. I have listened to those of my constituents who have raised the matter with me. It is not all one-way traffic. There are divergent views and differing legal and political opinions. As this is where we are, we must decide what to do. A number of issues are involved and it is important to resolve them. The central questions involve identifying the issues and the ways in which to resolve them.

The phrase which continually occurs to me and seems to encapsulate the debate is "unintended consequences". Unintended consequences occur where something happens which we do not expect. In December 1999, we intended through the 19th amendment to the Constitution to recognise the birthright of all the people of Northern Ireland to be accepted as Irish, British or both as they wished. That was the objective of the Good Friday Agreement. Our vote in that referendum extended citizenship rights to every person born in Ireland and its islands, a right enshrined in Article 2 of the Constitution. Some of those who voted "Yes" in the referendum intended that to be the case and, of these, some may have changed their positions subsequently. Others never intended Article 2 to stand as written. Everyone in each category, however, voted "Yes" and for many there were unintended and unexpected consequences. The issue of unintended consequences is one of the central questions we must face in the coming weeks.

Changing or amending the Constitution should be a last resort. We should only take such action when no other options are available. Apart from the 1999 amendment, many consider the second referendum on abortion to have had unintended consequences. People felt their intentions when casting their vote were not reflected in subsequent court judgments. This is one of the reasons we must be careful to avoid unintended consequences. Must we have a further referendum or will Article 9.1, which states that the future acquisition and loss of Irish nationality and citizenship shall be determined in accordance with the law, suffice? Is that not a vehicle with which to deal with the current problem?

An unintended outcome of the proposal before us may be that it inadvertently and unexpectedly unravels the Good Friday Agreement. While the British and Irish Governments tell us the Agreement will remain rock solid after the referendum, many parties and individuals question their judgment. Mr. Mark Durkan has called the proposal a scrambled referendum. Dr. Ian Paisley and the DUP welcomed the proposal which they see as an opportunity to unravel and unpick the Good Friday Agreement. As an unintended consequence, that would be a disaster. The issues at stake are neither simple nor straightforward. An honest and genuine attempt to consult all parties North and South must be made.

The All-Party Committee on the Constitution must be engaged and a Green Paper produced to deal with this matter justly, fairly and in keeping with the wishes of the people. Above all, this issue must be tackled in a manner which does not land us in the quagmire of unexpected consequences. I agree with Mr. Mark Durkan who described this as a scrambled referendum. That is the last thing we need. While there is an issue, we are dealing with it in haste when one should never amend the Constitution hastily.

Many Members accuse the Government of being political on this issue, although I will not do so. That is an accusation for the spin doctors. I am only interested in the outcomes of our actions. I heard promises from the Government in this House of consultations which might have produced a joint and agreed approach. Consultation with Members did not take place. Mr. Mark Durkan said of the Northern parties that the Government first ignored them and then dismissed them. He was notified of this matter after the fact, not at a briefing or meeting, but during a chit-chat over lunch. Some of the chat was on the record and some was off it. Why do we have an All-Party Committee on the Constitution when the Government does not see fit to consult it and seek its advice? When will the referendum commission be established? Its function will be to explain the referendum to the population, but with just over seven weeks to polling day, are we not skating on thin ice? If the Government intends to inform people fully, should the process not already have started? Does the fact that it has not confirm my view that we face a scrambled referendum?

Another issue of concern to many is that on 11 June most people will vote on three different matters. They will use the electronic voting system for the first time. I have heard Ministers tell us how aware the people are and how this will not pose a problem for anybody. While canvassing over the past two weeks, I have met many people who expressed concern. In the north western constituency, which covers almost 40% of the land mass of this country, people who vote will have to be aware of local and regional issues, local and regional politicians and the implications of a referendum on the Constitution. They will twice have to press a series of buttons to indicate preferences and vote and, subsequently, they will have to press another button to vote "Yes" or "No" in the referendum. I am not underestimating or undermining the intelligence of the electorate; I am reflecting what people are telling me on doorsteps.

While there is an issue to be resolved, we must deal with it in a manner which does not result in unintended consequences. I accept that in dealing with this matter we have a responsibility not only to ourselves and the will of the people, but also to those who find themselves in the unfortunate position of arriving here in the late stages of pregnancy. As a woman, I can only imagine their fears and hopes for their children. We have a responsibility also to our European neighbours. All this must be taken into consideration before we embark on a scrambled referendum.

I referred to our responsibility to our European neighbours. Sometimes, a Boston versus Berlin debate takes place here. Perhaps we should have one now and look not just to Europe, but to the USA and Canada also. We should remember the hundreds of thousands of Irish people who went to those countries. Their millions of descendants form the Irish diaspora of which we are fully proud. That diaspora exists because the USA and Canada granted citizenship to those who were born on their shores. I heard the Minister for Arts, Sport and Tourism, Deputy O'Donoghue, say that those who went to those countries were not asylum seekers. Would he have said that to the Young Irelanders, the Fenians, those sent to Botany Bay? The Statue of Liberty welcomed the huddled masses. Her message is, "I will lift my lamp beside the golden door". It seems that if there are any golden doors in this country we are closing them.

See this speech in context