Derek McDowell (Labour)

I am interested to hear the Minister's aside about horses being ready to bolt. Some of the comments made today and in the other House seek to convey the impression that somehow or other, there is a tidal wave of immigration or of people looking to exploit our law and our Constitution to gain Irish citizenship for children who will, at some point in the future, exploit it and perhaps come to work here or something awful like that. No matter what else we can say based on the facts that have been put into the public arena, the one thing we know for sure is that this is a fairly limited problem. The one point of which we are pretty sure is that we are talking about hundreds, or at most, the low thousands per annum in terms of children born here who go away and who may come back.

What does not seem to have struck people is that there are many other loopholes in the system which have given rise to what, on the face of it, should be much greater problems. I have had the opportunity to visit South Africa. I was there ten years ago this week for the election and I have been back a couple of times since. I have met dozens of people who have Irish passports, who have never been here and who have no intention of coming here. During the 1980s, before the apartheid regime fell, we issued not only tens of thousands, but hundreds of thousands of passports to people in that country. We certainly issued tens of thousands of passports in several consecutive years, so if the figure falls short of 100,000, it would only be just short of it. These people were looking for an escape route. I am not saying I necessarily blame them. Perhaps if I had been in that position, I would have done the same. However, if the Minister is so anxious to safeguard the integrity of EU or Irish citizenship, there are many other areas at which he should be looking. That provokes the inevitable question as to why he is looking at this problem or loophole.

The Minister and his party leader, the Tánaiste, made much of taunting members of my party in the other House, in particular. They wanted to know if we had a difficulty on the issue of substance. They said we were all obsessed with process and asked for our view on the issue of substance. It is fair to say we took our time. We took a week to two weeks to eventually announce a decision and to advocate that the electorate should vote "no". The reason we did so is simple and is no secret. We acknowledge there is a net issue which should be addressed. However, we believe it should be addressed in a different context. We believe there are many other associated issues, to which I will come in a moment if I have time, that should be addressed at the same time and this should be done in a sensitive and sensible way on a cross-party basis. All those things could be done because my basic views on immigration, race, asylum-seeking and so on are shared by most people and by most parties in this and the other House.

The reason we have come down so conclusively on this matter is that it has gone beyond process. I distrust the motive of the Government in putting this forward. I do not accept the bona fides of Government or of the Minister in proposing this amendment. Although I acknowledge, as everyone does, that the Minister is not a racist, the basic tenet or purpose of this amendment is to give succour to those who are or to those who will seek to stir up racist feelings in our society. Racism is not an easy issue or something one is born with. It is not something in one's head in that some people are racist and others are not. We are all capable of racist gestures and thoughts at certain times and of reacting in a racist way to events. I do my best; I do not think I am racist but I am perfectly capable of a racist thought. It is something that is learned. With experience we try to ensure we react to other people who are different from us, whether culturally or otherwise, in a welcoming way and in a way that accepts and values difference.

It is a steep learning curve for many people and this country is on a steep learning curve. Only five to seven years ago we were totally homogeneous and we have moved rapidly, more rapidly than one would choose if one could plan it, to a situation where we are intercultural or multicultural. We need a managed immigration policy and a sensible way to deal efficiently and fairly with asylum seekers and refugees. We need a broad consensus on the way we should do that, but we do not have that yet.

I genuinely believe that by taking out this one relatively narrow net issue and by looking to press certain buttons, we are seriously endangering our capacity to deal in a sensible and sensitive way with the broad issue. Some of those in Government who are proposing this, and I do not know whether the Minister is among them, wish to communicate to people who are concerned about whether black people are receiving benefits before they are, that there will be fewer black people around when this amendment is made. While there will not be, as the Minister knows, that message is being sent out. We are giving succour to those who want to hear it. We are seeking also to make common cause, deliberately or consciously or otherwise, to those who use or would use race for political aims. To use a legal term, we are being "reckless" as to whether they use race for political aims.

That is not something we should seek to do nor is it something parties in this House have traditionally done in the past. I remember many occasions on which the Taoiseach rose in the Dáil to seek cross-party agreement to ensure race was not brought into political discourse. It never has been before between the major parties and it should not be now. If we were to take the issue of employment permits, consider a managed migration policy and examine the issue of citizenship over a period of a year, I am certain we could have reached agreement on what approach to adopt. I am sure the Minister knows that. It begs the question of why he has chosen to proceed in this manner. I can only conclude that the Minister has adopted this course shamelessly and recklessly for party political gain. I deplore that.

While there may or may not be a problem, I am convinced it is not so great as to demand the current response. I am not a constitutional lawyer and I do not know if it could have been dealt with otherwise and by way of legislation. It may have been that the Supreme Court could have resolved the so-called problem. Certainly, it should have been given a chance. I am sure this amendment will do nothing to resolve the problem. While it may free up 5% of places at maternity hospitals, at what cost will that be achieved in terms of relationships in this country? Some people are seeking to make Ireland a cold place for people of different colour. I do not want to be part of that. Whatever merit there may be in the particular amendment which will be proposed to the people on 11 June, I do not want to be asked to press a button and send the message that this is anything other than a welcoming place for people of different colour.

Sadly, consciously or otherwise, the Minister has adopted an approach which tarnishes his reputation and the reputations of all those associated with proposing this amendment in these circumstances. I oppose this measure and I hope as many people as possible will do likewise on 11 June.