Paul Bradford (Fine Gael)

Blame could be apportioned on all sides. It was difficult to listen to one side with the other side interrupting. It was no way to conduct a debate.

The other issue that struck me during the debate on the Private Members' motion put down by Fine Gael some weeks ago and supported by the other Opposition parties but, inevitably, opposed by the Government was that while the House had to divide, it was the view of the majority who spoke that the referendum should not take place on 11 June. The Minister put forward a substantial case on the issue but the question he did not answer then and which he has not addressed to any great degree today is why are we having this referendum on 11 June.

Two arguments have been put forward today, one by the Minister and another by Senator O'Meara. Like all political questions, the perfect answer, if it is ever found, lies somewhere in between. There are questions which have not been answered. It is ironic, and also a cause for reflection, that we are having this debate on the "why now" question on the day an independent commission has recommended that the Government's proposal on electronic voting be set aside, although perhaps only temporarily. The Minister will recall that during the debate on that issue, there was not a huge gulf in opinion between both sides of the House. The Government's view of electronic voting was that it was right and that it should be introduced now. The Opposition's view was that electronic voting might be a good thing but that there were still questions which needed to be answered, issues which needed to addressed and that more time was necessary. The Government attempted to rubbish the Opposition's argument, proclaimed to know all the answers and to have all righteousness on its side but, fortunately, an independent body reflected on it, thought differently and reported today. The Minister should take warning from that commission. This issue might be different but, in a sense, it is similar in that while there is a solid basis for the Minister's argument, the grave concern is in respect of the timing of the referendum on 11 June.

Many of us would agree with Senator O'Meara who spoke about the considerable public confusion regarding the issue being put before it. Citizenship is simple in one respect, but complex in another. When the people go to vote on this referendum — I concede a minimal and reasonable set of proposals is being put forward — I would like to think they are voting on the right issue and that they are answering the right question. However, I do not think we are giving the people the time or the opportunity to do so. The Minister has obviously heard all these arguments in the other House and elsewhere but I wish to repeat that the issue is the question of timing. It would have been more helpful if what the Minister is attempting to push through now had proceeded following greater political consultation and consensus. That consensus would have existed because, given the speeches I have heard in this House and in the less than calm atmosphere in the other House, the overall opinion was that a problem may well exist but that quantification of that problem was not satisfactory. Various statistics and figures were thrown about like confetti but there may be an issue to address and if that is the case, that should be done. However, it requires to be addressed in a broader, all-party fashion rather than simply by way of a Government proposal being put to the Oireachtas and published in the middle of April with the people being asked to cast their votes seven weeks later. That is not the way to conduct a referendum campaign.

I have used the electronic voting argument. Let us also reflect on what happened in the Nice treaty referendum. We can fool ourselves into believing the second referendum on the Nice treaty was passed by the people because there was a substantial difference but there was little difference. The people endorsed the Nice treaty in the second referendum as a result of greater public debate and political reflection and consensus. People had the time and space to reflect on a serious issue while moving away from the more extreme irrelevancies which were a feature of the earlier debate. I fear that if we rush to the electronic or paper polls on 11 June, many people will not have had time to give this issue the attention it deserves.

As of today, the two major issues facing Cabinet are this one and electronic voting. I suggest, although not in a cheap party political fashion which would not help in this type of debate, that if we wish to address the issue of citizenship properly and ensure considered reflection and debate, it would solve all the Cabinet's problems if it were to put the referendum to the people next October or December at which time should also occur the first occasion of electronic voting. Despite almost 100% support for the concept of electronic voting in the Houses, the question of timing and methodology arise. If the referendum was to take place later in the year, people would have an extra number of months to debate and reflect on the issue to the degree it requires. Hopefully, by that stage, the outstanding issues with electronic voting will be resolved. As we see from today's report by the commission on electronic voting, those issues are grave.

I plead with the Minister to row back from this rush to the polls and involve all political parties in a greater degree of consultation. Reference has been made to the concerns of the parties to the Good Friday Agreement, particularly those in the North. While the Minister has given answers he, presumably, believes to be full and complete, we have heard from contacts among the Northern political parties that they consider further questions remain unanswered. We await further deliberation from the Human Rights Commission, which represents an independent group of people whose opinions we must take on board.

While the Minister's argument that there is a need for a referendum and legislation has a great deal of validity, why must we vote on 11 June? I ask the Minister to provide all parties with the time and space they need to work with him and to allow the people to make a crucial decision in a mature and meaningful fashion. This should not be decided as a mere annexe to local and European elections.