Paul Coghlan (Fine Gael)

I am not prepared to go that far. As Senator O'Toole said in another context, I know the rules.

I am glad Senator Minihan said there should be more consultation, with which I agree. As other speakers said, I also accept that the Minister is not a racist. When I spoke during the debate on citizenship held here on 7 April, I said that I did not want the Minister to stand accused of wrongly using the race card. Thank God, that has not happened and I hope it will not happen, as the Minister would be wronged if that happened.

I was struck by the points made by Senator O'Toole about the Human Rights Commission. Would the Minister not agree that we should take the view of that body as an independent objective assessment? Would it not be right for us to listen to that body further as proposed by Senator O'Toole? Senator Minihan briefly touched on the recommendations of the report of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. As a layman, I am slightly confused about the argument between Articles 2 and 9. I very much appreciate and like the wording used by the Minister at the end of his speech that fidelity to the nation and loyalty to the State are fundamental political duties of all citizens. Senator Terry made the argument that we should amend Article 2 rather than Article 9. Presumably there are good reasons, to which the Minister may refer when he responds at the end of this debate.

When we addressed this matter here through a motion tabled by my party on 7 April, I said that citizenship is fundamental, vital and something in which we take great pride, and it should be guarded jealously. I was pleased to hear the Minister state his firm conviction that Irish citizenship is something to be respected. It carries with it responsibilities to one's fellow citizens and to the entity which bestows the status of nationality and citizenship. This is something to which I am sure we all subscribe.

Given our fine constitutional democracy, I am sure the Minister will agree there should be the widest possible consultation on this issue. We are capable of this. I still do not see the need to hold the referendum on 11 June. I realise we are saved from the further complication of e-voting but this is still a lot for people to take on at once. Dealing with the issue hastily without the widest possible consultation might damage our democracy, which I am sure is not the Minister's intention. We should not leave ourselves open to that possibility. It would be preferable to have all-party agreement on an all-encompassing package of measures. Unfortunately, this will not be achieved by virtue of the intent here, which is a great pity. This is what is required because it is a complex issue. Even though it is just a proposal to amend Article 9, in effect, Article 2 is also involved.

The Minister outlined the effect four parts of the amending legislation on citizenship will have, which I welcome. I am confused about Article 2. This is an amendment to Article 9 which will enable the Citizenship Act 1956 to be amended. I welcome the Minister's comments on this. Senator Terry referred to how these two articles will interplay and so on. It is a pity a Green Paper was not published, which would have facilitated wider consultation on the matter. Senator Hayes was concerned on a previous occasion about the effect of this on the North. There is still confusion about the issue. We must consider whether the referendum will remove some of the rights conferred by the Good Friday Agreement. The Minister and the British Government have moved to satisfy people that this will not be the case. Are the political parties in the North, which we are so anxious to bring with us, satisfied in this regard?

I am amazed at the Government's haste in wanting this matter to coincide with the local and European elections. In the past, there were clear signals that this would not happen. We are aware that the debate could lead to a heightened atmosphere because, as several speakers said, it is a sensitive subject. No one will heighten it in this House because we are all too responsible. There are related issues of race, culture and identity. I was pleased to hear the Minister say the Government's proposals are colour blind, which is a good clear signal.

I am not satisfied about the practicalities at this time. It would seem that the Government is not doing enough to neutralise the suspected race factor. From the tone of his speech, it appears the Minister suspects that it may be almost impossible to have a rational debate on all of these issues. Somebody will step out of line somewhere. We need a political consensus and more dialogue on the issue. I strongly appeal to the Minister in that regard.

Thankfully, we will not have e-voting at the forthcoming elections on 11 June. I am glad for all our supporters that our tallymen will at least have one last hurrah and they will enjoy it.