Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I appreciate fully that there are different ways of dealing with it but the Government's job is to govern. Equally, if the Government was seen to be vacillating on an issue which the Opposition felt should be addressed, it would be the first to argue that the Government should deal with it instead of prevaricating. The arguments on this issue are simple and the electorate will have no difficulty in comprehending them, even though I suspect there will be attempts at obfuscation. We have heard some such attempts today and will probably hear them later also.

The timing of this amending legislation has also been criticised. The amendment to the Constitution that has given rise to some of the current difficulties dates back approximately six years. During that period we have had debates on the issue and Members of both Houses have expressed their views as to how it should be tackled. The Supreme Court's decision in January 2003 gave rise to considerable debate not just in the Houses of the Oireachtas but also, as Senator Terry will agree, on the Joint Committee on Justice, Equality, Defence and Women's Rights. At those meetings there was a consensus that the issue needed to be addressed and the Minister is now attempting to do that.

Some of the arguments about timing have maintained that because the referendum is due to be held in conjunction with the European and local elections, it would fuel some sort of racist undercurrents that a small minority might be inclined to display. If the referendum was held separately, however, that likelihood, if it existed at all, would be much more likely to emerge. By combining the referendum with the European and local elections, the matter will be addressed in a responsible way, as the coming months will show.

Much has been made of the comments of one or two people who may have made ill-advised remarks in the past, but that can happen at any time. The last time such remarks were criticised in this House, they concerned an election where no referendum was taking place at the same time. Others have said that the referendum should be held in conjunction with the presidential election but it is not yet clear whether there will be a contest for the presidency. It would be less appropriate to have the referendum on the day of the presidential election than on the day for which it has been scheduled.

Senator Terry inadvertently said that this issue was never discussed in the House, which is wrong. We have discussed it twice recently, once in Private Members' time and also when debating a Private Members' Bill from Senator Quinn. Senator Terry also said that the integrity of citizenship had never been discussed, but that is not the case. All of us as parliamentarians must fully support and advocate the integrity of our citizenship and the Minister pointed out that fidelity to the State and loyalty to the nation are fundamental political duties of all citizens. Dr. T.K. Whitaker's constitutional review group of 1996 stated that the terms were interchangeable and synonymous and that this was not simply the status of the relationship with the State. No Member could disagree with that statement. We should remind ourselves that in many other countries, when people achieve citizenship, they have obligations such as conscription at a certain age. They have to serve in that country's armed forces or defend it if there is a war. Those obligations are not as evident in a neutral country like ours.

The Minister rightly pointed out that no blame attaches to anyone who avails of any loopholes we may have in our legislation in order to achieve citizenship. People are also motivated by the possibility of better opportunities for their children. We value our Irish and EU citizenship and those from less developed areas would also value that citizenship, but there are provisions in our legislation which allow people to apply for citizenship, subject to appropriate qualifications.

This issue comes down to the simple question of whether citizenship should be automatic. Should anyone born here have citizenship conferred on them automatically? There are probably Members who feel that should be the situation and, if so, they should say so. They should not hide behind disingenuous arguments which are opposed to the holding of the referendum.

That is one argument. The other argument is whether the Oireachtas should have the power to determine the entitlement to Irish citizenship and what criteria should apply. That is eminently sensible and the referendum will restore this power to the Oireachtas. All people are being asked to decide is whether the Oireachtas should have that power or whether they wish to continue with the status quo, that anyone born here, regardless of the circumstances, is automatically a citizen. That is a clear choice for the people and it is open to people of all opinions to articulate their views.

A more important point will arise subsequent to polling, assuming there is a positive result, on the shape of the legislation. The Minister has rightly illustrated his intentions in this regard, stating that if either parent of a child is resident in Ireland for three of the previous four years, then citizenship is automatically conferred on that child. There are issues which it attempts to address. We have had the argument about maternity hospitals, to which Senator Ryan referred. The statistics clearly show that of the 5,000 births that took place in the Dublin area in 2003, 20% to 25% were to non-nationals. The report undertaken by the reception and integration agency, in conjunction with the Northern Area Health Board, cited difficulties for the Dublin maternity hospitals in dealing with unpredictable workloads and women, with no medical history in the State, arriving in the late stages of pregnancy. They also have to deal with high levels of HIV and other illnesses. A further difficulty is dealing with people who have little knowledge of English and different cultural practices and issues arise. All of this has been highlighted as creating genuine medical concerns which have to be addressed.

As members of the EU we have many entitlements, but we also have obligations. In a recent debate I set out clearly the regulations governing citizenship in Britain, France, Germany, Denmark, Sweden, Spain, Greece and Italy. We are well out of synch with them. The Minister is correct to bring forward the referendum at this time. It is a simple issue which has to be addressed by the people. They will do as they have done in the past and that may or may not give rise to the Houses thoroughly teasing out legislation to underpin their intentions. That is democracy in practice. The Minister should be commended rather than criticised for taking that route.