Jim Walsh (Fianna Fail)

I listened to Senator Tuffy yesterday. To be fair, she has raised an interesting point in this regard. I am not sure she is quite correct when she says people have that right now, since no one has a right under the Constitution until they are born, so the right does not come into play until then. It is not as if we are depriving someone of a right that he or she has at present. That point must be made.

While one could examine the wording of the constitutional amendment, as the Minister mentioned yesterday, there is a need to have it reasonably concise and clear-cut. Senator Tuffy has acknowledged that this will apply only in exceptional circumstances, but that does not mean we should not have regard to those circumstances when they occur. It is all predicated on "unless provided for by law". I have not discussed it with the Minister and do not know what is in his mind. However, I would be disappointed if the legislation did not in some way address the issue, either as published or as it goes through the House. The Senator's point is fair, and if we were discussing the legislation, I would support it.

However, that is probably the place for it, since many other aspects of how people qualify for citizenship will be included in the legislation. With respect, that is probably the place for it in this instance, since it relates specifically to children born of non-nationals. Therefore, there is a certain logic in having it all included in the legislation rather than part of it being attached to the Constitution, which is very specific about how people acquire citizenship as a birthright. While I sympathise and concur with the Senator's sentiments regarding the point raised, in practice the legislation will cater for it. It is probably preferable in the legislation rather than trying to have a much more detailed content in the Constitution. Much of what is in the Constitution is interpreted in various laws, which must conform with it. There would not be anything irregular about this either.