Michael McDowell (Dublin South East, Progressive Democrats)

There is an element of "Groundhog Day" to this debate as we have been over this ground a number of times. I acknowledge that Senator Terry has tabled these amendments to tease out some of the issues and to show alternative views that can be taken into account to enrich the debate. I also acknowledge that the Fine Gael Party is taking a responsible course in this debate by examining the merits of the issue. Having regard to what it has said about the possibility of doing the same task by a different way or on a different occasion, it is informing the public that this proposal should be favoured rather than rejected. I appreciate that support, subject to the qualifications I mentioned.

It has been suggested that because the Fine Gael Party and the Labour Party were not concentrating on this issue, then no other party was exploring the alternatives. That is simply not the case. It is always a Minister's and his Department's first instinct to deal with any problem by administrative or legislative action rather than by constitutional change. I looked at this matter prior to my appointment as Minister for Justice, Equality and Law Reform when I was Attorney General in the previous Government. It was an issue of concern when the number of asylum seekers rose to approximately 12,000 per year. This was prior to the L and O cases. At all times a considerable amount of intellectual effort went into the area of immigration, citizenship and its effect on asylum seeking. People scratched their heads and wondered how to deal with the issue because there were significant social implications if it was not dealt with. During that process, every single approach to this issue was considered. In particular, the legislative approach was considered at great length by me as Attorney General and by my successor. As Minister, I asked the Attorney General whether there was any way I could deal with the matter through legislation. I was told emphatically, in light of the second sentence of Article 2, about which I spoke yesterday evening, that neither he nor the Government could put their hands on their hearts and say they believed that legislation which had the effect of postponing, delimiting, refusing or confining the birthright entitlement to citizenship could be described as constitutional.

I confirmed yesterday that it is not possible for a Minister to know something is probably not constitutional but try to implement it anyway and that to attempt this would be to involve the Cabinet in a conspiracy to undermine the Constitution. If there was a 50:50 balance of probabilities or there was substantial doubt, different considerations could arise. In this case, however, the wording of Article 2, particularly the second sentence, makes it logically inescapable that there is currently a birthright entitlement to Irish citizenship, as the Taoiseach's letter to Deputy Quinn acknowledged so long ago, for everyone born on the island of Ireland regardless of circumstances. Given that this is the case, the Government has had no legislative option. Had there been such an option, it would have been taken.

I would like the House to accept the fairly elementary proposition that there is always a reluctance to amend the Constitution and that no Minister who wanted to amend the Constitution wantonly would be listened to for two seconds at Cabinet or anywhere else. Nobody in Cabinet genuinely thought this was a redundant exercise in plebiscitary democracy that was not required by the Constitution. There was no alternative.

It has been implied here today that somehow the motives of the Government in asking the people to vote on this proposition on 11 June are suspect, base and designed to achieve political advantage for the Government parties. I do not see how Fine Gael can be at a disadvantage, since it will be supporting the proposition. The Labour Party and other parties may take the view that because they want to oppose it, this might muddy the water. The purpose of a referendum under the Constitution is to consult the people and allow them to make a decision. The best way to do this is under circumstances in which the turnout of voters is likely to be broadly representative of the community rather than of people who have a narrow interest in the subject. We saw at the time of the Nice referendum how 17% could defeat 14% — I have forgotten the exact figures — because of a poor turnout. It is desirable that an issue such as this should not be decided by people who have strong passions on the issue to the exclusion of people who are not greatly motivated by issues of immigration but are nonetheless entitled to an equal say, as citizens, about this simple proposition.

As I said before, we are now 40% into the life of this Government. There may or may not be a presidential election later this year. There may or may not be a referendum on the result of the IGC if a treaty is concluded. The one occasion prior to the next general election on which we can be reasonably sure significant numbers of people will be going to polling stations across Ireland with many issues on their minds is 11 June. That is the best time to test the real view of the people on this issue. I agree with Senator Walsh that a single-issue referendum may not produce a more enlightened or representative result. If I were to encourage people to go to the polls on a single issue this autumn, I would be lucky if 25% of people voted. In order to enthuse them I would have to go stomping around the country making speeches about how important this is. I am certain that in those circumstances I would be accused of being an obsessive who is trying to run people out of their houses. I would be asked why I was not dealing with the crime problem and where are the 2,000 extra gardaí. I can imagine it all — I could write the scripts myself, because I have been in Opposition and I know exactly what I would say about someone in my circumstances.