Joe O'Toole (Independent)

There is an interesting parallel between the issue of electronic voting and the issue before us. As regards the former, the Minister for the Environment, Heritage and Local Government, flushed with success, infused with second termism and with no room for doubt in his mind, convinced the Government, his party, backbenchers and members of Cabinet and both Houses that his approach was correct. Does the Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform accept the close parallel between his colleague's conduct and his contemptuous dismissal of the concerns expressed by the Human Rights Commission within an hour of them being made?

It is vital that we place on the record the views expressed by the Human Rights Commission whose job is to offer a view. It stated that the issue of Irish citizenship must be viewed in the context of Irish immigration and asylum policy, which is not adequately grounded on human rights principles that promote the protection of all persons. That is a statement of fact and is on the record. We, as parliamentarians and public representatives, are required to take this view on board. The commission went on to state that the proposed amendment seeks to remove a category of persons, notably children born in Ireland to non-national parents, from qualification for Irish citizenship. Certain aspects may be changed afterwards in the legislation if it goes through, but we are currently dealing with one piece of legislation. The Minister's forebears, to their great credit, influenced the framing of the Proclamation which promises to cherish all children of the nation equally. This line was unfortunately never allowed into the Constitution. The Minister has turned upside-down the core principles of his predecessors. That is appalling and I am on their side against the Minister.

The Human Rights Commission stated that a notable feature of the Constitution is that some of the rights contained in the Constitution are explicitly linked to citizenship, whereas others are not. The Minister stated in his speech that the acceptance will not have the slightest effect on the way our citizenship laws operate at present. That is a true statement but is slightly fanciful as it gives another impression to the casual reader. The commission stated that even though it does not change the operation of the law, a notable feature of the Constitution is that some of the rights contained are explicitly linked to citizenship. The Minister dealt with aspects of that but he was unconvincing. His argument was weak. The commission is well stocked with lawyers who have been able to come up with these conclusions; they are not lay people sitting around the table interpreting the law.

The issue of most concern is the idea that we are bound not just by the Constitution but international treaties and conventions on human rights. The commission concluded that under a number of those treaties to which the State is a party, Ireland has accepted obligations to guarantee rights equally to all persons, specifically all children, within its territory without discrimination on the basis of nationality, race, ethnic background or other status. The Minister dealt with that comprehensively. However, his conclusion did not grow logically out of the points he made. The differential treatment likely to result between citizen and non-citizen children may constitute unlawful discrimination under international law in respect of a new category of non-citizen children.