Maurice Hayes (Independent)

I welcome the Minister to the House and thank him for the quality of his introductory address. There are two matters to which I wish to refer which have nothing to do with the Minister primarily. There were newspaper advertisements from both the Referendum Commission and the Department of the Environment, Heritage and Local Government today about a referendum on a fixed date. This presumes rather a great deal and constitutes contempt for the House.

I welcome the peroration of the Minister's address. I hope he will not tell me that is not in character as I believe it is. It is extremely important to affirm the openness of this country to those who come to it and the fact that we welcome them. That should not only be because we need them economically, but because of the contribution they can make through diversity and differences of culture. Ireland should be the last country in the world to make it difficult for people to enter.

The Minister mentioned the importance of not endangering common travel arrangements or creating difficulties in our relationships with European colleagues. I, too, am concerned about the dangers of travel to expectant mothers and their children. That practice should not be encouraged. It is for the Minister to make a judgment on the question of proportionality and timing in that regard. I have not yet had an opportunity of studying in detail the views of the Human Rights Commission on the matter. I was a member of the Human Rights Commission, which is made up of fallible human beings. While it made an important contribution to the debate I was not convinced about the concept of non-citizenship.

I would like, in the time available to me, to concentrate on the relationship between this legislation and the British-Irish Agreement. As a resident of Northern Ireland and one who has always prized my entitlement to Irish citizenship and claimed it, I believe the British-Irish Agreement is an important affirmation of the continuing rights of a body of people in Northern Ireland who wish to regard themselves as Irish. I welcome the Minister's explanation of the legislation and accept his contention that it does not in any way dilute the undertakings given in that Agreement.

Article 2 is, I believe, in legal terms a little bit of froth. The formulation in Appendix II of the Treaty is much sounder and more legally recognisable. That it is parallel to the British formulation is important. I am happier for the Minister to cleave to that formulation. What we are dealing with here has had an unintended effect in that something done for good reasons, largely political rather than legal, has backfired. I hope in attempting to correct it, we will not rush to create something which will have another unintended effect.

It is important that the Minister and Government take every opportunity to reaffirm the position and to reassure people in Northern Ireland that their status is not being diminished, their Irishness is not threatened in any way and that any rights that may have been affirmed in the Agreement and subsequently endorsed in the Treaty remain inviolate. The legislation has also had another intended effect in that last night, the DUP, stated that if the Minister can change this part of the Treaty, it is quite entitled to make changes to other parts of it. The Minister needs to clarify that no change is being made. That the Minister is basing his case on the Schedule to the Intergovernmental Agreement is a strong factor. I commend the Minister in that regard. I hope that any publication or discussion on the matter will bear in mind the very legitimate concerns of people in Northern Ireland. In particular, those who have suffered a great deal and those who have given up much to achieve the Agreement should not feel something is being snatched away from them. I do not believe that is the case. I am quite happy with the Minister's explanation today and hope it will be more widely accepted.