Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

The Irish Human Rights Commission produced a 32-page document of observations on which it would not be possible for me in the limited time available for parliamentary questions to give a detailed response. I propose to concentrate on the principal points made in those observations.

In summary, the commission asserts that being an Irish citizen makes the enjoyment of human rights in the State certain whereas, for the non-citizen, there is legal uncertainty and possible exclusion from the enjoyment of those rights. I do not accept the soundness of this assertion because its logical conclusion would be that in order to guarantee the protection of the human rights of a non-national present in the State, the State must confer Irish citizenship on every non-national who is in or comes to the State. This is a patently unacceptable proposition.

In publishing this assertion, the commission has not identified any respect in which the protections afforded by Irish law for the fundamental human rights of a non-national within the State would be diminished, either because that person is a non-national, or because that person would be affected by the acceptance of the referendum proposal. When I first saw the aforementioned arguments sketched out in an initial response by the commission I said they were weak, tendentious and fanciful. My view has not changed. The arguments have not been fleshed out in a way that would give them any greater weight, although they have greater size in the 32-page document.

The commission also asserts erroneously that the referendum proposal may be inconsistent with the State's obligations under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, which Ireland ratified in 1992. The referendum proposal is that the Oireachtas be given power to determine by legislation the future acquisition and loss of citizenship of a class of persons born in the State to parents neither of whom was an Irish citizen or was entitled to be an Irish citizen at the time of the child's birth. The proposal, if accepted, will restore in part the position that prevailed at the time of Irish ratification of that convention, a position in which the Oireachtas had power to make such legislation in respect of all classes of persons whether born in Ireland or not. If the present proposal were inconsistent with the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child, then so would have been the Irish constitutional position that we ratified in 1992. However, that was clearly not the case. Accordingly, I reject this second assertion also.

Additional information not given on the floor of the House

The commission acknowledges that there is an inconsistency between the British-Irish Agreement, at Article 1(vi) and Annex 2, and the wording of Article 2 of the Constitution which was included in the multi-party agreement at Annex 1 to the British-Irish Agreement. The commission's observations do not appear to take proper account of the joint interpretative declarationmade on 21 April last by the two Governments, whereby they acknowledge that it was not their intention in making the British-Irish Agreement that it should impose on either Government any obligation to confer citizenship on persons born in any part of Ireland whose parents do not have a sufficient connection with the island of Ireland and that the proposed constitutional change was not an amendment of the British-Irish Agreement.

I remind the House that I have asked the commission for its observations on the draft implementing legislation published by the Government in conjunction with the referendum proposal. This is the legislation that will follow in the event of a "Yes" vote in the referendum. I am anxious to ensure that the commission's observations in due course on that draft legislation will inform the debate on the implementing legislation.

See this speech in context