Joanna Tuffy (Labour)

Members should all have been presented with copies of the Constitution for the purpose of this debate. I forgot to bring my copy with me. For a debate of this nature, copies of the Constitution should be furnished to Members.

As regards what Senator Terry stated earlier, as I understand it we are changing a right, which exists under the Constitution. In the recent court case relating to the dual mandate, the judge stated that there is a right to run for election to the Dáil. This obviously can be qualified by legislation but it remains a right. I would have thought that the matter we are debating also involves a right. I accept that it can be legislated for but it is still a right. The Minister is interfering with a right. Even if it can be qualified by legislation, that right still exists under the Constitution. If it was not a right and was just an entitlement to apply for a particular right, there would be no need for this constitutional amendment. That is the point Senator Terry was making. The Minister should clarify whether it is a right. If it is not a right, the referendum should not proceed. If a right exists and it must be qualified by legislation, it must be qualified proportionately to one's needs.

My second point relates to Senator Mansergh's comments about Article 2. I do not accept that articles of the Constitution can be kept pure from the amendment. It is as if the Constitution will remain as it stands at present, regardless of whether the amendment is carried in the referendum. There are two different articles in the Constitution, which deal with property rights. If one was amended, both would be affected in terms of the way the courts would interpret them. In this instance, the Minister is effectively amending Article 2.

Senator Mansergh said that the next matter to which I wish to refer has been debated but I do not accept that. However, I accept that it was raised by the Labour Party in the Dáil. We are dealing with something that was part of the agreement reached in the multi-party talks. Although the latter does not form the whole of the Good Friday Agreement, it remains part of it. I refer to the law of treaties in that regard.

This is a complicated issue and we should not be dealing with it in this way. The type of process required for dealing with it would have been similar to that employed by the All-Party Committee on the Constitution. In such a process, different aspects could have been teased out and expert advice obtained. Hearings could have been held, if necessary, and we could have obtained legal and other advice.

I do not know what is the Minister's intention in bringing forward this measure now. I have already been out knocking on people's doors and I am aware that the debate on this matter is being simplified. I hope the discussion around it will evolve during the campaign. People are making simple responses in respect of this matter and they are not considering the complications involved. The Minister stated in the weekend's newspapers that he would like to introduce a green card system. The Labour Party would favour such a system and we, therefore, have some common ground with him. However, people will not appreciate that during the referendum because of the way the issue will be debated.

The referendum will not attract one extra vote for the Progressive Democrats. It will obviously help Fianna Fáil in that regard, which is its intended purpose. I am not stating that was the Minister's intention but it is the reason the Fianna Fáil Party is supporting this measure. The Progressive Democrats will not make even the slightest gain in terms of its support in the elections so I do not understand why that party did not delay this measure and have it dealt with in a much more detailed way.