Sheila Terry (Fine Gael)

The Minister has greater skills than many if he can listen and speak at the same time. Fine Gael's commitment has not been reciprocated by the Minister. Members of this House first became aware of the proposal to have a referendum to deal with the citizenship issue when the Minister published his information note on the proposal on 12 March. At that time the Minister's justification for holding the referendum was based on the contention that the masters of the maternity hospitals had pleaded with him to change the law. The masters have strongly disputed that, so the Minister has now changed his tack.

It is clear the Minister has taken the American realist approach to our Constitution. He has decided on the result he wants to achieve and is working backwards, grappling at reasons to justify his decision. This is not the way to treat our Constitution. His mantra now is that this referendum is required to protect the integrity of citizenship. He has clearly abandoned the contentious argument about the maternity hospitals for the altogether more abstract desire of protecting the integrity of citizenship. What exactly does this mean? I have never heard him express concerns about the integrity of citizenship. Why is it suddenly an issue? If it is an issue, let us have a debate on it. The integrity of citizenship has never been discussed in this House. If the Minister is serious about protecting the integrity of citizenship, let us talk about our many tax exiles. Are they not undermining the integrity of citizenship?

On the announcement of this proposal, the Minister committed himself to all-party consultation on the matter. My understanding of all-party consultation is that the participants meet with a view to contributing to the shaping of proposals. This clearly did not happen in regard to this Bill. On 7 April, this Bill was presented to our spokesperson on justice as a fait accompli. At no time were we given an opportunity to contribute to its content. Fine Gael wrote to the Taoiseach seeking all-party consultation on the issue. These consultations never took place in a meaningful way and it seems fair to suggest they never took place at all.

It is grossly irresponsible of the Minister to propose that this referendum be held on the same day as the local and European Parliament elections. The debate on this divisive and sensitive issue will be skewed and manipulated by some purely because it is being held at election time. We saw that happen at the last general election in Cork. Purely by choice of timing, the Minister has shown the race card by making citizenship an election issue. In making a decision on the timing of this referendum, the Minister and the Government had a responsibility to ensure it would not be hijacked by people with ulterior motives, but they have failed in that regard. Despite the Minister's failure to admit this and his denials otherwise, political responsibility for the timing of this amendment and any consequences which flow from it rest with him.

I doubt anyone in this House would disagree with me when I say the Constitution is the foundation stone of the State and should only be amended as a last resort. Where a decision is reached to amend it, this should only proceed after careful and considered debate. The lack of time afforded to people to consider the proposed referendum is of grave concern. Bills to amend the Constitution only arise out of a process of discussion and consultation commencing with a Green Paper, followed by a White Paper and culminating in a Bill. In his wisdom, the Minister has chosen to short-circuit all precedence on this issue presumably because he knows best.

The nature of what is being proposed is clearly an amendment to Article 2. The Minister would rather make the proposed amendment by way of Article 2 than Article 9 as he now proposes. Perhaps the Minister will confirm this is the case and that the reason he has chosen to amend Article 9 over an explicit amendment to Article 2 is because an honest amendment to Article 2 would necessitate further and wider consultation than he would like. It seems the less consultation required, the better.

Despite the recent declarations of the Irish and British Governments, the oblique amendment of Article 2 as proposed in this Bill will have implications for the Good Friday Agreement. The concerns of the Human Rights Commission and other parties have not been taken on board. While there is a need to address the problems stemming from the abuse of the rights conferred by Article 2, Fine Gael differs with the Government on how best to resolve the issues involved. Fine Gael has consistently advocated that this matter should be referred to the All-Party Committee on the Constitution where the issues surrounding the proposal could be teased out. The wider question of the integrity of citizenship with which the Minister is concerned could be examined in that context also.

The Minister speaks of the integrity of citizenship while displaying great carelessness towards the integrity of the Constitution. The Constitution should only ever be amended as a last resort. I remain to be convinced that all other avenues have been exhausted or even explored. While the Minister will tell me he has explored the possibility of resolving this issue through legislation alone and that he and the Attorney General do not believe such an approach is feasible, the legislative option should be considered with greater vigour. The problem posed by the exploitation of Article 2 is difficult and requires an innovative solution. The Minister contends that Article 2 of the Constitution prevents him from dealing with this issue by legislation alone, for which reason a referendum is required. The Minister may be mistaken. The courts have never adjudicated on the absolute meaning of Articles 2 and 9. In the absence of knowledge of the true meaning of these articles, it seems most unwise to seek to propose an amendment. The Minister appears to attach great significance to the obiter dicta of judges of the Supreme Court. Are we really to make legislation and amend the Constitution on the basis of the asides and by-the-way remarks of the Judiciary?

Use of the forum of the All-Party Committee on the Constitution would have allowed all aspects of this intensely complex legal matter to be teased out. It is my assessment that while there is no one magic answer to this issue, there is a range of options which has yet to be fully discussed. There is some merit in the argument that we do not require a referendum and that this matter could be dealt with through primary legislation alone. Despite everything the Minister is saying now about the meaning of Article 2, he imposed restrictions and conditions on the right to citizenship in section 6 of the Irish Nationality and Citizenship Act 2001. It is legitimate to ask why we cannot introduce further restrictions without a referendum. Another mooted option involves the publication by the Minister of the draft citizenship Bill, its movement through the Houses and subsequent enactment. The Supreme Court could then decide whether a referendum was required.

I am not advocating a particular option, rather I am outlining some of the avenues the All-Party Committee on the Constitution could have explored. A further option involves the amendment of Article 9.1.2 which would begin with the words "Notwithstanding Article 2". This amendment would have the effect of reinstating the power to regulate citizenship by legislation. As I stated earlier, the Minister is, in effect, amending Article 2. He does so in an oblique and misleading manner. The proposal contained in the Bill represents a back-door amendment to Article 2, which is the source of the problem we face. If this Article is where the problem lies, it should be addressed in an honest and up-front way. Has consideration been given to inserting the text of the proposed amendment to Article 9 into Article 2 instead? Has the Minister considered limiting the currently broad scope of Article 2 by inserting into it the one-parent Irish citizen requirement? Alternatively, has the Minister considered inserting a proviso at the beginning of Article 2 which makes reference to Article 9.1.2? These are just some of the alternative options which could have been discussed by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution.

I do not claim to have a monopoly of wisdom on this issue and there are, no doubt, many other options which could have been discussed in that forum. Regrettably, the Minister has passed up the opportunity to have all avenues explored before settling on one particular option. I wonder if that is because the Minister knows best and has greater wisdom than members of the all-party committee or Members of the Houses of the Oireachtas.