Brian Hayes (Fine Gael)

I thank everyone who contributed to the debate, which was an excellent one. Some important issues were raised. I passionately believe that the role of this House is fundamentally different from that of the other House when it comes to debating issues such as these. We feel lucky to be in the House when we hear the kind of spectacular contribution that was made by Senator Minihan. It was an honour to hear him speak outside the party box and put on the record, in a cool and honest way, what happened during the last general election campaign in Cork. We need that kind of honesty in politics. I compliment him on his remarks.

We are joined by the Minister of State, Deputy O'Dea, who gave us his view on the matter, a view he shares with many colleagues on that side of the House, last Monday. As Senators, we have a role to ensure that the Executive knows our views on these matters and tests them in the context of the debate. I do not accept the fatalistic view that the Government has made its decision and nothing more will happen. That is why we have a republic — so that open debate of this nature can be heard in the House, arguments can be tested and, most importantly, the Government can admit it is sometimes wrong. The Government would display much rationality if it stated that it would be wrong to proceed with this referendum on 11 June and if it listened to its Ministers, to significant figures in the House, such as the Leader, and to significant figures in the Government parties and then decided not to proceed.

The Minister of State should pass on my next point to the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform. Will the Minister publish the minutes of the meeting between himself and the masters of the three Dublin maternity hospitals to give us an independent account of what occurred? I am sure his Department has the minutes.

The point was well made by Senator Ryan that the programme for Government contained a promise of all-party consultation and discussion before this matter would be put to the people, but that has not happened. A nine-page memorandum given to Opposition spokespersons three weeks ago is not the same as an all-party discussion. I disagree fundamentally with Senator Morrissey who said this is a straightforward and simple issue. It is not straightforward, it is highly complex. All these matters ultimately come before the Supreme Court and it is that court's interpretation which wins out. The suggestion that this legislation can be passed through the Oireachtas with a short debate before 11 June is nonsense. The very people who gave us the changes to Articles 2 and 3 of the Constitution, who framed those words and who brought the Bill before the Oireachtas, are now proposing amendments to our citizenship laws. The notion that Governments are infallible and never get things wrong is nonsense. The Government was wrong in 1998 and when we go through the detail of the forthcoming legislation, it may well be proven wrong again. That is why we need to proceed with this matter in a deliberative fashion.

I want to respond to the Minister's arguments about why we should not hold this referendum on the same date as the presidential election. All the candidates in the presidential election, if we have such an election, would not be asked their views on this matter because they would be pre-empting a decision of the Houses of the Oireachtas should the referendum be successful. The presidency is a fundamental part of the Oireachtas, so in the context of a presidential election this issue would be parked because the candidates would not be able to express their views. They could not do so because the Bill would not have gone through the Oireachtas.

In the context of the local elections and the experiences we have heard about from Senators Ryan and Minihan, the notion that this issue will be neatly parked during the campaign in the run up to polling day on 11 June is farcical. Government candidates in particular will be under much pressure in the elections. Those who will want to play the race card by following the illustrious example of the honourable Member for the Dáil constituency of Cork North-Central, will play that card, if it suits them, to get back in for five years. That is the inherent danger that lies behind putting this proposal to the electorate on 11 June.

I want to put a final argument, which has not been answered by the Minister. The Supreme Court ruling of January 2003 is very definite on this issue. It says that if a non-national child is born in this country it is automatically guaranteed citizenship but that its parents are not guaranteed citizenship or residency rights. What has changed so dramatically since that ruling? Has it led to a dramatic reduction in the number of people coming to this country? As Senator Ryan said, we do not even know the latest data concerning the total number of such people. It has not led to a radical reduction. The Minister should explain, therefore, why changing the Constitution will alter the scenario in terms of the number of people who want to come here.

What we need are more midwives to deliver the babies being born here. We also need a bit more honesty on the issue of the unborn child. We have had great debates over the past 20 years concerning the unborn child but it seems that if a child is black or comes from a poor country, it will be forgotten about. Let us join up our thinking on this issue and get back to the notion of the Republic. Those who lay most claim to being republicans in this debate are acting in a most improper fashion. We have much thinking to do. We need more time and that is why this issue should not be put to the electorate on 11 June.

Amendment put.