Noel Grealish (Galway West, Progressive Democrats)

The alternative would be to hold a referendum on citizenship at some other time. This would involve extra cost. It would probably involve a lower turn-out. Worst of all, there would probably be a greater danger of racist tendencies and unthinking abusiveness surfacing if the referendum were held on a stand-alone basis than if it were held on the same day as local and European elections where it will not be the sole focus of political attention and debate. I favour holding this referendum on 11 June as this date would be best for a balanced debate, a higher turn-out and for limiting expense.

The Opposition's proposal is that we should refer this matter to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. That is a mistaken proposal. The fundamental issues are straightforward. Should children born in Ireland get automatic citizenship even if neither parent has any real connection with Ireland or with the Irish people? A referral to an all-party committee would make sense if there were complicated issues which needed teasing out but there are not. It would make sense if this was a problem we wanted to be seen doing something about but did not know what to do. However, we do know what to do. It would also make sense if we wanted to talk rather than take action but we do not.

If one had a leaking roof, one would not ask how many gallons per hour were coming into the house, sit down with one's extended family to decide whether there was a need to fix the leak, or spend time holding an architectural competition for a new roof. One would phone for help and set about fixing the roof immediately. However, under the Opposition's amendment we would sit down and have a lengthy chat while the problem got worse. On the issue of citizenship, it is not more talk or analysis of the options for action that is needed because all options for action lead unavoidably to constitutional change. If we do not do that, no other action to solve our problem is possible.

This must have been clear to the Opposition when it tabled its amendment which portrays clearly its fundamental problem, namely, while the Opposition can agree what it is against, it cannot agree what it is for. Without an agreed alternative, all it can manage is to agree to defer the problem, distract us from the issues and dither while we offer a solution. Instead of the mantra of "reduce, reuse and recycle", the Opposition strategy is one of "defer, distract and dither". The Government cannot afford such luxury but is condemned to take responsibility and must act.

See this speech in context