Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)

I support the Government's proposal on citizenship. The reasons we need this amendment to the Constitution are straightforward. Our current citizenship law needs to be changed. Under our present law, citizenship is being given to people with little or no connection to Ireland or to its people. Such people will in turn be able to give Irish citizenship to their children and grandchildren. It is wrong that Irish nationality can be given out in this manner. Just as it was wrong for Irish citizenship to be sold for high prices under the passports for sale scheme, so too it is wrong for Irish citizenship to be given away free as if Irish citizenship, Irish nationality and the Irish nation meant nothing to us.

We saw the case of Mrs. Chen, who consciously went to Belfast to have her child born there so that she could argue that, with an Irish citizen child, she should have the right to reside in the UK. Irish citizenship law is being used to circumvent UK immigration control through the use of European Union free movement rights.

We have problems in our maternity hospitals which are symptomatic of the problems in our current citizenship law. The master of the Rotunda Hospital has, according to the Irish Independent, warned that it is surprising that there has not been a major catastrophe within the maternity services yet. The figures for Dublin's major maternity hospitals show that approximately a quarter of births are to non-nationals. More than 80% of the births to non-nationals are to citizens from outside the European Union. That means approximately 20% of births at Dublin's major maternity hospitals are to citizens of non-EU countries, or approximately 4,000 births a year in Dublin alone. Many of these were births to EU citizens or to non-EU citizens working here who are perfectly entitled to remain here with their children. However, it is believed the majority were to other non nationals.

The other problem, as Mr. Tommie Gorman of RTE reported last Sunday, is that health professionals in Belfast have noticed an increase in the number of non-nationals giving birth in hospitals there who are using temporary accommodation addresses and who are aware of Irish citizenship law. Non-citizens are going to Belfast and to other parts of Northern Ireland in late pregnancy to confer citizenship on their children.

For a variety of reasons, Irish citizenship law needs to be changed. I am not alone in holding that view. Deputy Enda Kenny has been reported as accepting that there is "a problem of non national persons arriving here particularly in later pregnancy". Even Deputy Rabbitte was reported last Saturday as stating that we cannot leave the door "wide open".

To change our citizenship laws we need to change the Constitution. That is the legal advice the Government has received. I am not a lawyer and therefore not in a position to contradict that point. However, it seems the current wording of Article 2 of the Constitution is clear: "It is the entitlement and birthright of every person born in the island of Ireland, which includes its islands and seas, to be part of the Irish nation". What does entitlement to be a member of the Irish nation mean if it does not entitle somebody to Irish citizenship? The upshot of this is that if we want to change the current automatic entitlement to Irish citizenship for those born in Ireland we must change the Constitution.

If we change the Constitution, will the Government bring in a citizenship law which would be unduly harsh? In this legislation we have the answer. The Government has not merely produced its proposed amendment to the Constitution. It has also produced the draft legislation it will introduce in the event that the amendment to the Constitution is carried. This draft legislation was analysed by the Legal Affairs Correspondent of The Irish Times, Ms Carol Coulter. She concluded that if the legislation were enacted into law, Ireland would still be "one of the more liberal states in the EU from the point of view of citizenship". Here is a person with no reason to particularly favour the Government point of view saying that if the Government's proposals were accepted we would still have a liberal citizenship law. This is the answer to those who charge that the current referendum is racist.

I note that Deputy Cuffe is reported as indicating his party's support for an organisation called The Campaign Against the Racist Referendum. I am disappointed that he and his party would ally themselves to those who bandy around the word "racist" so casually. I am disappointed that a Member of the Labour Party who is not a TD referred publicly to "the racists in the Department of Justice". I oppose racism. However, I also oppose applying blanket terms of abuse to people not only because of their race, but also because of their professions, their political views or their employer. We should condemn and combat racism but we should also fight the wider problem of sectarianism and abusive behaviour. It is not merely wrong to unfairly and negatively label a person because of their race. It is also unfair to label a person as racist because they work in the Department of Justice, Equality and Law Reform. I hope that, in time, the Green Party and the Labour Party will dissociate themselves from those who instrumentalise the term "racist" to unfairly abuse people against whom they offer no evidence of racism. Unfortunately, some people seek to identify so much with their followers that they cease to offer them leadership away from mistaken positions. Unfortunately, some people seem to believe that stating they are against racism means never having to say they are sorry. In my book, self-righteousness is no excuse for doing wrong.

One major difficulty is that none of the Opposition parties has produced its own detailed proposal on this matter. Instead of proposing something constructive, individual Opposition Deputies have remained in simple opposition mode. I was relieved over the weekend when Deputy Rabbitte announced that the Labour Party will shortly bring forward its own detailed proposals on this serious matter. I hope other parties and individual Deputies will bring forward their own proposals. In the absence of competing ideas on how to deal with the issue of citizenship, there is a danger that the people will be offered no choice but that between a Government proposal on one side and disunited chaos on the other.

The situation is straightforward. We need to change the law of automatic entitlement to citizenship for those born in Ireland. To do that we need to change the Constitution. Even after we have changed the Constitution and enacted legislation, we will still have one of the more liberal immigration regimes in the European Union, so what is the problem?

One issue that has been raised is the integrity of the Good Friday Agreement. I can understand that the SDLP has its own political instincts which it wishes to articulate. That is perfectly legitimate. I can understand that the SDLP, having laboured for years to install a new constitutional arrangement on this island, does not wish to see that arrangement threatened. However, the SDLP should be reassured by two facts. First, the Irish State operates in accordance with law. It would be unlawful for the Irish state to breach a binding international agreement such as the Good Friday Agreement. It is unthinkable that the Attorney General or his predecessor, the current Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform, would propose legislation to this House which would involve us in a breach of the Good Friday Agreement. Second, the Government's proposed legislation follows exactly the detailed definition of entitlement to citizenship set out in Annexe 2 to the Good Friday Agreement. Far from breaking or threatening the Agreement, we are following its detailed provisions.

A second issue raised is the issue of the time required for the people to decide this question. People do not need much time to decide on the question of whether somebody with no prior links to Ireland should be automatically entitled to Irish citizenship merely because they were born here. People do not need much time to decide on whether the Oireachtas should have the power to determine the entitlement to Irish citizenship of children, neither of whose parents is an Irish citizen or is entitled to Irish citizenship.

A third issue is whether the referendum should take place on the same day as the local and European elections. I note that the Opposition has not stated when it believes the referendum should take place, just that it should not take place on 11 June. There are only two practical alternatives to holding the referendum on 11 June. We could wait until the presidential election later this year. That election might never take place. Furthermore, it would be grossly unfair to drag presidential candidates into a referendum on citizenship.

See this speech in context